LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 94
0 members and 94 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 08-06-2004, 02:07 PM   #11
Did you just call me Coltrane?
Registered User
 
Did you just call me Coltrane?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Throwing a kettle over a pub
Posts: 14,753
Political Ad

Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not sure your facts are right on consumptive spending, but even if they are, the rich also invest, which is even more important in a supply-side model.

But I don't think emphasis on tax cuts for the rich is really where it's at. It's emphasis of tax cuts at the highest rates, which is where the rich are. I don't think you'd see this group arguing for an inverted tax system.
Gotcha.

I don't have any facts on middle-class spending. I was assuming that, since the middle class is the biggest class, it would spend the most. Also, and this may not have been true 20 years ago, the middle class is investing a lot more.

My point was that the biggest tax cuts should benefit the middle class, and not the upper class. This would seem to increase consumption and investment. Or is this more of a Keynesian/demand driven outlook? I'm speaking in purely economic-growth terms, not in who deserves and who doesn't deserve a tax cut.

ETA: Of course, none of this shit works when you go on a money-spending rampage.
__________________
No no no, that's not gonna help. That's not gonna help and I'll tell you why: It doesn't unbang your Mom.

Last edited by Did you just call me Coltrane?; 08-06-2004 at 02:13 PM..
Did you just call me Coltrane? is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:59 AM.