Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not sure exactly what program is being talked about, but typically taxation of the rich improves the income of workers in two ways. Firstly, since the government is sovereign the money which is taxed is technically "deleted" from economic function. This controls inflation and thus slows down the gradual decay of money value, and the decay of money value is beneficial only to the rich since they are the only ones with significant savings relative to debt. Secondly, the money can be "used" for any number of social programs which offset living costs for workers. I put used in quotes because again, the government is sovereign and has infinite money, it just insists upon limiting itself to things it "can pay for" unless those things are for bombing brown people's weddings.

glorious mmt kickflip into socialism, mish gang 4 lyfe, dab on them property owners, etc.

[Maximum Spin]

Curious your reasoning for this. Because economically, some examples I can think of (though maybe on the higher end)

With 300 dollar a month increase in income, I could actually afford alienware PCs after a few months of savings. Very hard to do that now. of course alienware is expensive and there are far more affordable options, but its just an example. So then (in this example) alienware makes money from me, which in turn goes back to the economy as they pay taxes and pay their employees. or just in general computer upgrades, suddenly with an increase in income, hardware for pcs would sell more. So the money goes right back to the economy or back to the people through taxes. Its almost like what andrew yang wanted to do.

But I am open to all opinions on this, like post above economic discussions can be interesting (even if I'm just barely able to understand it lol). Is there a reason this wouldn't work through taxes?

Simple case for your example: with more money going toward Alienware computers, the prices of Alienware PCs and computer hardware in general increases according to the law of supply and demand. Ultimately this distributes out to an across-the-board cost-of-living increase.

ETA:

the rich [...] are the only ones with significant savings relative to debt.

It's depressing that you think this.

[ChairmanPoo]

When will you end this election barbarity nonsense and implement a Neoplatonian fundamentalist theocracy in the US?

[feelotraveller]

Simple case for your example: with more money going toward Alienware computers, the prices of Alienware PCs and computer hardware in general increases according to the law of supply and demand. Ultimately this distributes out to an across-the-board cost-of-living increase.

Because supply is fixed and there is no economy of scale?  Pardon my sarcasm.

[misko27]

So debate is coming. Quake with fear mortals. I am unsure whether to skip this one as I did the first (and the second, come to think of it! Haha). Perhaps muting will make it more tolerable. But perhaps it's better to just hear the important bits later. Most people have made up their minds by now, this'll only change things if one of them pass out or something.

Unrelated: An image from AP on Oct 20th of Mitch McConnell indicate his hands appear heavily bruised. He claims nothing is wrong, but they're clearly highly discoloured and there's a few bandages. Snopes confirmed the authenticity of the photos, and others of his hands are available.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

ETA:

the rich [...] are the only ones with significant savings relative to debt.

It's depressing that you think this.

If you've got enough savings that your money is growing in absolute value faster than inflation is decaying its purchasing power, you're either rich or the economy is dying. Regardless, the vast majority of Americans either have no savings or their savings are negated by their debts, so it's the truth of the matter.

And we haven't even hit the deflationary spiral yet...

Unrelated: An image from AP on Oct 20th of Mitch McConnell indicate his hands appear heavily bruised. He claims nothing is wrong, but they're clearly highly discoloured and there's a few bandages. Snopes confirmed the authenticity of the photos, and others of his hands are available.

Ok mediposters, what's your diagnosis?

[delphonso]

McConnell's hands look like halloween props.

[Dostoevsky]

the rich [...] are the only ones with significant savings relative to debt.

It's depressing that you think this.

Best source of data here I can find is BLS's annual consumer expenditure data split into deciles; while the average overall is net savings of about 8k, when broken into deciles you get the following (estimated) average annual savings if subtracting by after-tax earnings:

• Bottom 10: -19k, roughly
• Second 10: -14k
• Third 10: -10k
• Fourth 10: -7k
• Fifth 10: edit to -3k, looked at the wrong number
• Sixth 10: +3k
• Seventh 10: +12k
• Eighth 10: +20k
• Ninth 10: +29k
• Top 10: +80k

[More figures here.]

I'm not an expert in this area though, so take with a grain of salt.[/list]

[scriver]

ETA:

the rich [...] are the only ones with significant savings relative to debt.

It's depressing that you think this.

If you've got enough savings that your money is growing in absolute value faster than inflation is decaying its purchasing power, you're either rich or the economy is dying. Regardless, the vast majority of Americans either have no savings or their savings are negated by their debts, so it's the truth of the matter.

And we haven't even hit the deflationary spiral yet...

Unrelated: An image from AP on Oct 20th of Mitch McConnell indicate his hands appear heavily bruised. He claims nothing is wrong, but they're clearly highly discoloured and there's a few bandages. Snopes confirmed the authenticity of the photos, and others of his hands are available.

Ok mediposters, what's your diagnosis?

Mitch is secret Fight Club champion

[McTraveller]

I'm not sure exactly what program is being talked about, but typically taxation of the rich improves the income of workers in two ways. Firstly, since the government is sovereign the money which is taxed is technically "deleted" from economic function. This controls inflation and thus slows down the gradual decay of money value, and the decay of money value is beneficial only to the rich since they are the only ones with significant savings relative to debt. Secondly, the money can be "used" for any number of social programs which offset living costs for workers. I put used in quotes because again, the government is sovereign and has infinite money, it just insists upon limiting itself to things it "can pay for" unless those things are for bombing brown people's weddings.

glorious mmt kickflip into socialism, mish gang 4 lyfe, dab on them property owners, etc.

Taxes don't delete money from the economy in fractional reserve systems.  Paying off loans is what deletes money.  It's one of the absurd things about the modern world that money is created by issuing debt rather than by creating goods and services.

[nenjin]

Ok mediposters, what's your diagnosis?

Bruised from breaking a fall, would be my guess.

[misko27]

Hang on let me provide an image.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Thankfully the individual who produced this has kindly cropped out the horrifying image of Mitch McConnell's face

[Maximum Spin]

Best source of data here I can find is BLS's annual consumer expenditure data split into deciles; while the average overall is net savings of about 8k, when broken into deciles you get the following (estimated) average annual savings if subtracting by after-tax earnings:

• Bottom 10: -19k, roughly
• Second 10: -14k
• Third 10: -10k
• Fourth 10: -7k
• Fifth 10: edit to -3k, looked at the wrong number
• Sixth 10: +3k
• Seventh 10: +12k
• Eighth 10: +20k
• Ninth 10: +29k
• Top 10: +80k

[More figures here.]

I'm not an expert in this area though, so take with a grain of salt.

This is all true, but the problem is that it's insane to think this means "only the rich have savings". This is basically a "people died at 40 in the middle ages"-type error. What is going on here is that people through all the deciles have savings, but the people with huge amounts of debt increasingly balance them out on average. This doesn't mean that only the rich have savings, it just means that only the richest deciles have relatively fewer debtors.

[delphonso]

Looks like blood-thinners to me, and just pooling in his extremities - probably his legs/feet look worse.

[Maximum Spin]

Simple case for your example: with more money going toward Alienware computers, the prices of Alienware PCs and computer hardware in general increases according to the law of supply and demand. Ultimately this distributes out to an across-the-board cost-of-living increase.

Because supply is fixed and there is no economy of scale?  Pardon my sarcasm.

In the short term yes, and in the long term... well, effectively, yes. Economies of scale are essentially mythical in the modern day.