Jump to content

OSUViking

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2,534

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Posts posted by OSUViking

  1. Posted

    That is not trickle down economics though. We are talking about personal spending not job creating.

     

    The idea that the rich will spend their money at all for the benefit of the economy (which spending it personally would do) is essentially the philosophy of trickle-down economics. The sad truth is that they don't just spend their money; rather, they put it in banks and let the interest rates balloon their wealth or they invest it overseas, where they stand to gain even more money. In a world where the rich were nice people, it would work; however, we live in a world where the rich notice a big fat pay check and then drool at the thought of turning it into even more money.

  2. Posted

    Care to elaborate. The Kennedy administration thought it was a good idea.

     

    This is purely a scenario. Assume that the income tax on the middle class is 23%, and the income tax on the upper class is 29%. With a flat tax rate, you can either move down to that 24% or you can move up to the 34%. The problem with moving down is that you generate far less revenue. Contrary to what modern Republicans think, levying less taxes does NOT lead to more revenue in the long run. Now, let's assume that the government decides to move up to 29%. If the majority of the middle class already spends close to 100% of their income to get by (mostly true), how will raising their income tax by six percentage points help out? The government will make the revenue it needs, but it will absolutely cripple the middle class. You can argue all you want that splitting it even would help, but you still run into the whole problem of not getting nearly as much revenue as you would receive with a progressive tax system.

  3. Posted

    However dont you think the wealthy would buy more ? I mean the cost of a Maserati and a Toyota is quite a bit. The houses they buy, restaurants, hobbies, just about everything they do is more expensive.

     

    Trickle-down economics didn't work back in the 30s, and it won't work now (or ever).

  4. Posted · Edited by Vikingfan465

    As a math major, I believe that's the fairest way to do it. But the reality is that increasing taxes affects the wealthy a lot less than it affects the middle class. Any flat tax that's easy on the middle class won't get enough revenue to cover government expenses, and any flat tax that generates enough revenue will cripple the middle class. So you've got to find that happy medium.

     

    ^This; you can charge a lesser rate at the expense of revenue or a higher rate at the expense of the Middle Class' well being.

  5. Posted

    The problem with this assumption is that taxes aren't just going up for the super rich. There are a lot of small businesses making around $300,000 who file their taxes as individuals, not as corporations. Considering how the economy's been the last few years, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the tax hikes are going to hit them hard.

     

    This is also why I think that the tax hikes should be on higher amounts of income. $250,000 seems way too close to the middle class for it to be just taxing the super rich.

    • Upvote 1

  6. Posted

    For the other, more capable individuals in this thread. I would much rather target those who get away without paying any income tax then the ones who already pay the most.

     

    Why? That's just putting the burden on people that will hurt even more. Like I said, the wealthy can handle a tax increase much better than the middle or lower class can. Unless, of course, you talking about the Fair Tax System. (I'm still learning about that, so I'll have an opinion on it soon.)

     

    Budget needs balancing. Massive cuts need to take place. That will help much more than asking the deep pockets to bail us out.

     

    Cutting now is going to balloon the unemployment. So if/when we do cut government spending and the unemployment figures go up, you have no room to blame Obama for those losses.

  7. Posted · Edited by Vikingfan465

    This is how I see it: the rich can handle a 3-4% rate increase and still be able to spend as much as they like; however, if you dock this 3-4% rate increase on the middle class, their spending is hampered and their lifestyles are drastically changed. Even though the progressive system has its flaws, it is far superior to the regressive tax system and flat tax system.

  8. Posted

    What are the figures for the top 2%? I've been reading that Obama proposed tax increases on all revenue over $250,000 (rates on the income below $250,000 will remain the same). That just seems odds, because my economics teacher was saying that Obama was talking about increasing taxes on the billionaires of America.

     

    Also, I tried watching Maddow on MSNBC because she was talking about the fiscal cliff. Being the first time I watched a major news outlet outside of the election and the debates, I was not impressed and was actually kind of turned off by how she was conveying her point.

  11. Posted

    I'd like to see him get 2,000 yards, but he faces some tough defenses to cap off the season. I don't see him being as productive as he was this game against the Packers at home, as they could be healthier and flat out trying to stop him. I still think we should pound the ball with AP against the Bears...

  12. Posted

    I don't know... at one point I'm seriously pissed when he blows great drives like he did at the beginning of the second half, but at another point it's not always his fault. Regardless, the entire passing game needs to step up and actually do something. AP can't be our workhorse like this for long, or he will wear out quickly. Also, there are no notable QBs I can think of that are entering the draft. I think we should invest in an elite receiver to complement Harvin and then work on things like the defense and offensive line.

     

    Although, if the same thing happens next season I can't say I will support Ponder.

  14. Posted

    I still think Ponder is the QB for us in the future (aside from comments I make during fan-rage mode), but I don't get why we give him the ball when he's not doing well. Even if the receivers are just flat out dropping catches, why put the ball in Ponder's hands when the other half of a passing play isn't doing their part? This game was overall extremely frustrating.

  20. Posted

    Not one to bash on refs, but come on. An awful pass interference call and then a roughing the passer call when he hit him immediately after he passed it? Come on...

     

    ALso, give the fucking ball to AP. Ponder won't win this game for us if we don't have Harvin. AP ONLY HAS 7 CARRIES GIVE HIM THE DAMN BALL.

  21. Posted

    Personally, I'll give it to Peyton. AP has been outstanding and I <3 this season, but we have to give credit to the revamped offensive line and the rising passing game. I'm sure that AP acknowledges that his performance isn't all him (at least, I hope he does). He's having a great year (an amazing year), but I can't say that I'm not dumbfounded by what Peyton is doing.

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×