Democrats.I still haven't seen the answer to my question of who raised these entitled brats?
Democrats.I still haven't seen the answer to my question of who raised these entitled brats?
Wait .... what? Are we rewriting history here again? Double digit mortgage rates started around 1978 and didn’t get below 10% until 1991. 80-84 were the peak at 13-16% average rates for a mortgage..... And a few years of high interest in the mid to late 70's doesn't change that.
After having learned how to calculate compound interest in my mid teens I mapped out a plan to be rich and retire by age 42. I just had to get a decent paying job, live below my means, keep reinvesting in CD's, not take out a mortgage, or any loans.Wait .... what? Are we rewriting history here again? Double digit mortgage rates started around 1978 and didn’t get below 10% until 1991. 80-84 were the peak at 13-16% average rates for a mortgage.
I mean according to sone it only lasted a couple years so....After having learned how to calculate compound interest in my mid teens I mapped out a plan to be rich and retire by age 42. I just had to get a decent paying job, live below my means, keep reinvesting in CD's, not take out a mortgage, or any loans.
High interest rates were the norm. Interest rates had been high for so long that I thought they would always be high. So much for that plan, eh?
If it helps think about it this way. The previous way the government cooked the GDP books and stroked the economy was to spend money inefficiently. We all know the government overpays for hammers, nails, and the works. Thing is that’s a feature of the system not a bug. Now with direct money to consumers by direct payment, lower tax burden on the blue collar workers or higher wages the money is being spent ,according to capitalism, in the most efficient manner possible and is creating the most jobs as growth.Sigh. So, basically, 'It's different this time'
Something something history something repeat it
Well, keeping it in perspective, it lasted long enough for a teenager to think that's always what the rates would always be, but not long enough for the plan to work. The 70's were a decade of ****.I mean according to sone it only lasted a couple years so....
Uh, have you ever taken an economics class? Trickle down is not a policy. It's just how **** works.If it helps think about it this way. The previous way the government cooked the GDP books and stroked the economy was to spend money inefficiently. We all know the government overpays for hammers, nails, and the works. Thing is that’s a feature of the system not a bug. Now with direct money to consumers by direct payment, lower tax burden on the blue collar workers or higher wages the money is being spent ,according to capitalism, in the most efficient manner possible and is creating the most jobs as growth.
Free market capitalists, like many here claim to be, should be jumping for joy at the efficiency of the system. Who knew if the tax burden and wage system was structured in such a way that people of a lower class had just a little extra the system would work much better?
That's probably the kind of crap they are teaching in economics now.Uh, have you ever taken an economics class? Trickle down is not a policy. It's just how **** works.
Well, not really. My son is an economics major for his undergrad and I ask him pretty often about that. It's the standard macro/micro economics so far. Heavy on math, light on ideology. The business school seems to be run mostly by libertarians.That's probably the kind of crap they are teaching in economics now.
I probably wouldn't judge all the schools by the one your son attends. People are getting these thoughts from somewhere.Well, not really. My son is an economics major for his undergrad and I ask him pretty often about that. It's the standard macro/micro economics so far. Heavy on math, light on ideology. The business school seems to be run mostly by libertarians.
But then AOC was an economics major. She went to University of Boston I think?
Yes that’s how demand is created. Trickle down has been failing for decades. .gov gave a consumers just a small percentage of what they gave businesses and now demand is booming for everything. Hence inflation.
And government debt doesn’t matter. We have moved on as a global system to demand centered economics and “modern monetary theory” that says gov debt doesn’t matter and printer goes brrr forever handing out free money.
It doesn’t work. In a study of countries that passed Reagan type tax cuts vs those that didn’tUh, have you ever taken an economics class? Trickle down is not a policy. It's just how **** works.
Have you ever listened to the fed president remarks? This is what they are saying not what’s being taught in school. Jpow talks pretty often and the other fed presidents get interviewed regularly. If one wants to stay current then listening to their remarks is the way to do it.Uh, have you ever taken an economics class? Trickle down is not a policy. It's just how **** works.
Those arguments are kinda like arguing that gravity doesn't exist because you want to fly. The difference with making bad economics decisions as opposed to bad physics decisions, is that the consequences of bad physics decisions develop rather quickly and no one is going to argue that the reason you hit the dirt at terminal velocity wasn't because of gravity. You have a whole host of people willing to argue that the bad economics decisions wasn't due to the misunderstanding of the economic science, it's that's we didn't implement the policy just right.Uh, have you ever taken an economics class? Trickle down is not a policy. It's just how **** works.
Your statement and your quoted article are severely flawed. The Reagan tax cuts did in fact cut the marginal tax rates dramatically, but then again deductions were cut dramatically. In the end it was more a truth in taxation than a huge tax cut. Incidentally, federal revenue did go up after this.It doesn’t work. In a study of countries that passed Reagan type tax cuts vs those that didn’t
“Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't, the study found. But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered”
50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says
Tax cuts for the wealthy didn't boost the economies of the U.S. and 17 other countries — but they did worsen income inequality.www.google.com
An investment account that is 50% stocks and 50% bonds has historically returned 9.0% annualized witha standard deviation of 8.1%After having learned how to calculate compound interest in my mid teens I mapped out a plan to be rich and retire by age 42. I just had to get a decent paying job, live below my means, keep reinvesting in CD's, not take out a mortgage, or any loans.
High interest rates were the norm. Interest rates had been high for so long that I thought they would always be high. So much for that plan, eh?
Too great a gulf between our beliefs, my friendIf it helps think about it this way. The previous way the government cooked the GDP books and stroked the economy was to spend money inefficiently. We all know the government overpays for hammers, nails, and the works. Thing is that’s a feature of the system not a bug. Now with direct money to consumers by direct payment, lower tax burden on the blue collar workers or higher wages the money is being spent ,according to capitalism, in the most efficient manner possible and is creating the most jobs as growth.
Free market capitalists, like many here claim to be, should be jumping for joy at the efficiency of the system. Who knew if the tax burden and wage system was structured in such a way that people of a lower class had just a little extra the system would work much better?
BingoYour statement and your quoted article are severely flawed. The Reagan tax cuts did in fact cut the marginal tax rates dramatically, but then again deductions were cut dramatically. In the end it was more a truth in taxation than a huge tax cut. Incidentally, federal revenue did go up after this.
Federal revenues go up and down in response to behavior of taxpayers post tax cuts. The info is out there on how to dodge taxes in the event of new taxes or increases in taxes. For instance in some of the circles I am involved in have already put out info on how to evade the new 1031 rules.Incidentally, federal revenue did go up after this.