Low Effort Wealth Spread
Comments ... #
so, i guess for this to be funny you have to earn $250,000 a year
Someone still doesn't get it.
Desperadooooooooooooo!!!!!
Good point, upso.
The classic class baiting story goes like this.
If you make over $250k, your taxes will go up, if you make less your taxes will go down.
End of story - easy for everyone to swallow. More people make less than $250k than make more, so its a great story to tell to get votes.
The problem is, people aren't paid with money. People are paid with lifestyles.
And taxes are not paid by income. They are paid by consumption.
You think the withholding on your paystub is the tax you pay? Its not. The tax you pay is the witholding on my paystub if you buy the product or service that I make. And the taxes that I pay are the witholding on your paycheck if I buy the product or service you make.
Your income is not an endpoint. It is a cost in the value chain. The endpoint is consumption - when someone buys.
Here are two constants:
1. The cost of government is paid by all individuals by their consumption - not their income.
2. A given job will always be rewarded with the same relative lifestyle regardless of tax distribution.
Trust me, the person that makes $250k today will be living the exact same lifestyle after his taxes are raised by an Obama plan. That's because his relative value in the economy is unchanged.
No matter how much you tax that $250k guy, he is still worth 5 times more than the guy that makes $50k today - so he will still be paid 5 times more.
The prices of the products that the $250k guy makes will go up, and the prices of the products that the $50k guy makes will go down.
Its a wash.
Focus on constant #1:
The cost of government is paid by all individuals by their consumption - not their income.
That is the constant that socialists don't want you to think about. That's why they try to divert your attention by dividing the population and trying to make you think that you will somehow pay less if you make more than $250k.
So - now that we have a little sanity in place - let's deconstruct an Obama government.
Remember all costs for government are paid by individuals' consumption. So take the cost of government and add it to the price of all the things we all buy.
Now ask yourself these two questions:
1. Will the cost of government go up given Obama's plans for spending?
2. Who consumes more as a percentage of their income - the rich or the poor?
Oh snap.
EDIT: "That's why they try to divert your attention by dividing the population and trying to make you think that you will somehow pay less if you make less than $250k."
There is not a scrap of valid economics in that post. Where did you copy and paste it from?
posted by thetoledowire_com on Nov 01, 2008 at 07:11:26 am #
I didn't copy and paste it from anywhere. Can you discuss why you think the economics are not valid?
If you don't think that government is paid for with consumption, explain why.
Wether you like spread on your bread or not - we soon may not have a choice.
Defend your right to use real butter - vote, and don't believe - everyone loves kool aide.
TAHL
posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Nov 01, 2008 at 08:02:39 am #
Sorry for me it seems that if your gonna give a tax refund to people that didn't pay any taxes its like buying their vote. Thinking on about that I wonder how many jobs will those low income people create with those refund checks.
posted by Linecrosser on Nov 02, 2008 at 04:02:57 am #
Get the head out of the sand and actually READ Obamas tax plan. Two days to go and you still don't understand the facts?!?!?!?!??
>>Get the head out of the sand and actually READ Obamas tax plan.>>
Ryan, are you referring to the fact that based on terminology its not actually a refund but instead a lower rate?
I'm not sure how much that technicality matters. The basics are the same and Linecrosser understands exactly. Its the oldest, most predictable liberal policy there is - raise taxes on the rich and lower taxes for the less rich. And since there are more constituents that are less rich - it certainly is lucrative in terms of getting votes. It is effectively buying them. And it is blatently pitting one part of the country against the other.
Another thing that Linecrosser understands, is that capital is being removed from the top which means less available for investment and growth - ie, less jobs for the less rich that are supposedly being helped.
The loss of capital is actually the corollary to what I am referring to above in which there is pressure for the $250k crowd to simply increase their salaries to make up the loss in taxes. If that happens, the increase is simply built into higher prices which just transmits it to all consumers.
So, take your pick. Lost capital or higher prices.
TINSTAAFL
But its not the end of the world. The less rich will have more take home pay with which to pay the higher prices.
Rearranging dust.
posted by babbleman on Oct 31, 2008 at 09:01:38 pm #