I claim any increase in cost to the wealthy trickles down to the middle class in some way, shape or form. If their costs increase for any reason, then they take actions to compensate for that loss. If we're talking merely investing and capital gains taxes become too high, then they just quit investing. See, that's the thing about being wealthy, they don't have to invest money at all, and their quality of life is unchanged. However the middle class suffers when they stop investing.
Biden is breaking at least one campaign promise a day
- Thread starter Savannah_Dawg
- Start date
What do you mean by they "stop investing"? How are they stopping investment in your scenario and what are they doing with that capital that's no longer invested?
Whatever they desire. Sitting on it, stuffing it under their mattress, burying it in their backyard, investing in Asian markets. Whatever the hell they want. Now, back to the original point: Please explain to me how they won't counter increased costs, whatever those costs may be.
your claim is that the wealthy "stuff cash in their mattress" or "bury it in their backyard" instead of investing because of higher capital gains and income tax rates? The wealthy are not as stupid or irrational as you apparently believe they are, which is why they are the wealthy and you are not. I'm laughing that you would even consider writing that as a legitimate option. You're talking like people use strategies from 1929 for their millions / billions.
And the wealthy in the US pay taxes on foreign income and capital gains similar to their domestic income and capital gains. You can't massively avoid federal income taxes by investing elsewhere - Uncle Sam and his tax code already account for that.
The wealthy won't "increase costs" because there isn't a clear mechanism for them to pass through those costs profitably. Goods and services are already priced at levels to maximize profit - given price elasticity of demand and the threat of foreign competition, there is no magic bullet to increase price in this situation. That's a fairy tale you tell yourself.
The argument for "trickle down economics" is that the wealthy would get to keep a higher % of their earnings long term and create a larger pie, not that they would alter pricing or costs. Trickle down economics for the super-wealthy also has limited empirical evidence in its favor in economics.
Clearly my comments were tongue and cheek. Evidently, I gave you too much credit. If you truly believe the wealthy incur excess/additional costs without recouping in some fashion, then we'll have to agree to disagree. And the middle class end up eating the difference.
your understanding of how trickle down economics would even work is deeply flawed
And that’s before the question of whether trickle down economics even benefit us - the economic literature indicates no
happy to mock your idiotic statements for what they are
didn't read one word of your cat fight while listening to this:
I've lost 6 pounds with this regimen in only two weeks.
stay hydrated...
indeed.
any questions?
Last edited:
I hate 80's music.
that being said,
it's easy.
AC/DC...
song is variable regarding my mood.
earlier the better,
but you mentioned 80's.
...and you?
Talking heads are tough to beat. David Byrne still has it too. This is from 7 or 8 years ago
