it really bothers me that the minimum wage bill was blocked

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by lew

He said economic principles. That's true. Just like math. Math has no ethics. Neither do economic principles.

Economics is not staight math, you cannot "prove" supply side economics, it is not a fact, its barely a social science

Like all other fields related to economics, it relies on opinion, and opinion is always intertwined with morality

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by hsmith

I take it you don't understand that the rich don't bury their money in mason jars in their back yards?

Their money is invested in stock, which creates capital that creates jobs. So this is your "myth". Bill gates doesn't "have" $50 billion dollars, he is creating $50 billion in jobs by allowing others to extend his fortune to create better opportunities for others.

nice try

hifive.com

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You're right, they might invest it instead, producing jobs, assets and money in the long run.

Or they might just blow it on a new car creating demand which is what most dems are for, so either way its a win right?

Supply side encompasses a lot more than employment. More than lower taxes, more than investment incentive.

Or they hold onto the bulk of it to pass on tax free like their parents did.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Economics is not staight math, you cannot "prove" supply side economics, it is not a fact, its barely a social science

Like all other fields related to economics, it relies on opinion, and opinion is always intertwined with morality

So are you suggesting that the trends and market reactions with reguards to supply side be ignored? That would seem to put the country in economic danger.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by hsmith

So? Her money is going back into the economy and creating jobs for people. What is wrong with that? just because it isn't where you'd like the money to go doesn't make it any worse.

yeah, taxing estates at 100% and letting the gov't spend the money would be a brilliant idea

Which helps our economy and country better, Paris Hilton putting 30,000 more under her pillow, or the US Government buying $30,000 armor upgrades from US corporations for a military humvee?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Or they hold onto the bulk of it to pass on tax free like their parents did.

Hold on to it through what?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Which helps our economy and country better, Paris Hilton putting 30,000 more under her pillow, or the US Government buying $30,000 armor upgrades from US corporations for a military humvee?

her spending/investing money.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Which helps our economy and country better, Paris Hilton putting 30,000 more under her pillow, or the US Government buying $30,000 armor upgrades from US corporations for a military humvee?

She doesn't put it under her pillow and you fucking know it which is the whole flaw in the argument. You think she sticks it in a hole in the ground and just makes monthly withdrawls? I know for a fact you dont think or believe that, where does she keep her moneY?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Sorry Ballz but I have to say if you are upset with the blocking of this bill it makes me question your conservative nature...the only thing worth a damn was the tax cut but at the expense of passing the other shit in this bill I was glad to see it blocked.

as much as we like to say minimum wage sucks, blah blah blah, we have to eventually realize it's going to be increased, either by bush or someone. it's not going to be abolished like we'd all like it to be.

i'm also smart enough to realize in politics, if you want to get something done, you have to give a little in other things. you HAVE to compromise on certain things, otherwise it would be a never-ending tug-of-war where NOTHING gets done.

i thought this was a decent idea.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Or they hold onto the bulk of it to pass on tax free like their parents did.

So, the money wasn't taxed to begin with when their parents earned that money?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by hsmith

I take it you don't understand that the rich don't bury their money in mason jars in their back yards?

Their money is invested in stock, which creates capital that creates jobs. So this is your "myth". Bill gates doesn't "have" $50 billion dollars, he is creating $50 billion in jobs by allowing others to extend his fortune to create better opportunities for others.

nice try

Not all the rich invest/spend all their money, I don't know where you pulled that from

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Or they hold onto the bulk of it to pass on tax free like their parents did.

Even if they held it all in a bank, that would allow more loans to be generated at lower rates. If they buy up gold, then that increases gold's value, causing others to sell and money gets pushed back around. If they buy houses people have to build the houses and maintain the houses and they'll buy stuff to put in the house and keep the house running...

what else can rich people buy?

Not saying I agree with huge tax cuts for the rich... I want huge tax cuts for EVERYONE. But the rich do make and spend a lot of fucking money.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

as much as we like to say minimum wage sucks, blah blah blah, we have to eventually realize it's going to be increased, either by bush or someone. it's not going to be abolished like we'd all like it to be.

i'm also smart enough to realize in politics, if you want to get something done, you have to give a little in other things. you HAVE to compromise on certain things, otherwise it would be a never-ending tug-of-war where NOTHING gets done.

i thought this was a decent idea.

If it had been just min wage and tax cuts I'd say ok, but the fact that the min wage law trumped some of the state laws on the books that alone is enough for me to say hell no.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

2) It makes people spend their vast fortunes instead of letting it sit under their pillows, outside the economy...concentrated wealth that is out of circulation kills an economy. When people save more and spend less, thats a road to a depression.

This is bullshit. This is not the game of Monopoly...there is not a limited amount of money. I have yet to find a rich person who doesn't spend his money in some way. I'm sure there are pan handlers who live in a van down by the river and have millions of dollars in bags of shoved in trees all over the countyside but this isn't going to affect them anyway. Whether the rich own houses and cars and planes and boats or run businesses and employ people......they're spending their money. Taxing it so "they don't keep it" is just dumb. Paris Hilton is rich. She's going to be rich. She could never lift a finger except to push the call button for her maid and that'd be fine by me. But taxing her inheritance essentially because "she didn't earn it, and it could do more good 'in these times'" is bullshit.

If my parents are worht $10M when they go my brother and sisters and I should get $10M. Not $5M untaxed and $5M taxed "for the greater good, because they should have spent it rather than handing wealth down and keeping it out of the market."

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Which helps our economy and country better, Paris Hilton putting 30,000 more under her pillow, or the US Government buying $30,000 armor upgrades from US corporations for a military humvee?

If we weren't fucking up other countries (ie Iraq), we wouldn't need 30k armor upgrades.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Yeah, 8 year old Chinese purse makers LOVE Paris Hilton's spending habits...

I'm j/k,

It allows them to eat, does it not?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

So, the money wasn't taxed to begin with when their parents earned that money?

It was, but it should be taxed when it's passed on to someone who didn't earn it. Much like a lottery.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Not all the rich invest/spend all their money, I don't know where you pulled that from

Then where do they put it?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So are you suggesting that the trends and market reactions with reguards to supply side be ignored? That would seem to put the country in economic danger.

History trends shouldn't be ignored either, but they aren't fact, they are simply educated estimates

History is not a hard science either

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Or they hold onto the bulk of it to pass on tax free like their parents did.

bullshit...

my dad is not 'rich' by any means, but when he does get a little more money, he buys land, property, real estate, whatever. he hires people to take care of it, develop it, manage it...while he is still the owner of the assets, and i'll get them when he passes on, it's still money put into the economy. he's added on jobs to take care of that land and property.

it's nothing but common sense. economics may not be a pure science, but it doesn't have to be when you have common sense.