Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I wasn't insulting your intelligence you called yourself a punk, and I merely used your own term

That aside, wasn't this thread about Cain's disastrously awful plan to transition between the current tax scheme and a "fair" tax scheme?

Melissia wrote:I wasn't insulting your intelligence you called yourself a punk, and I merely used your own term

That aside, wasn't this thread about Cain's disastrously awful plan to transition between the current tax scheme and a "fair" tax scheme?

Did not call myself a punk, in fact I believe I stated that I was not some sort of punk. You on the other hand decided to use my own term and apply it to me.

Now as far as insulting my intelligence that would be dogma, which is something he does a lot whenever he is incapable of either understanding someone's point or is just plain incapable of expressing his own in a lucid manner.

Melissia wrote:
Those whom have lots of money tend to save more as a percentage of their income than those that do not; those that have less money tend to spend a larger percentage of their income than those that have more.

It's one of the most consistent facts in economic history, and why the "fair tax" is regressive.

The operative word there is tends, and there is a world behind that word. You can also replace the word tend with should or need to. Which leads me to my point; there is a lot of potential downward social mobility and social Darwinism when it comes to the rich. The rich who do not save (which tends to be the new rich that come from lower or middle class backgrounds often making their fortunes from the music industry, entertainment industry, or professional athletes) will not remain rich if they don't save. There are plenty of rich people that mismanaged their money into bankruptcy. The fact is the rich who to not save a larger % of their income than the middle class don't remain rich and don't pass down a family fortune to their children. The conclusion liberals such as yourself can draw from the fact I put down is that the prudent thing for the rich to do with any future tax breaks the republicans give them would be to save most of the money because the rich don't get to stay rich unless they are prudent with their money. It's the largest flaw with theory of trickle down economics. It's also why I believe that tax breaks to the upper middle class (80 to 200k/year professionals) will produce much greater economic stimulation than tax breaks to the upper class (Those that don't need to work at all for a living).

Man, halo and melissa need to get better at communicating. It's been a long time since I saw two people agree that angrily for that many posts.

Halo is just saying that any given group increases spending when they have more money and you turned it into an argument about the exact rates at which groups spend.

They all still increase spending when you give them more money, regardless of the diminishing returns.

And yes, there are absolutely diminishing returns.

halonachos wrote:
@Dogma, I have said that spending and savings were different. I have repeatedly said it and you have repeatedly said that I was wrong, but guess what Dogma, the website that the graph comes from also agrees with me on the definition of saving compared to spending.

no, that website doesn't provide information which is consistent with what you have described the distinction as, excepting those items you quoted from the website in question.

halonachos wrote:
I would appreciate it if you didn't try to act so high and mighty by saying that my base definition of saving vs spending is incorrect.

I'm sure you would, but I like being correct, so it probably won't happen.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
@Dogma, I have said that spending and savings were different. I have repeatedly said it and you have repeatedly said that I was wrong, but guess what Dogma, the website that the graph comes from also agrees with me on the definition of saving compared to spending.

no, that website doesn't provide information which is consistent with what you have described the distinction as, excepting those items you quoted from the website in question.

site wrote:Saving represents a decision to postpone consumption by saving money out of disposable income. Why do people choose to save their incomes? There are many motivations for saving:

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:I would appreciate it if you didn't try to act so high and mighty by saying that my base definition of saving vs spending is incorrect.

I'm sure you would, but I like being correct, so it probably won't happen.

Yeah because you are always right, see above quotes in order to open mouth and insert foot.

halonachos wrote:

site wrote:Saving represents a decision to postpone consumption by saving money out of disposable income. Why do people choose to save their incomes? There are many motivations for saving:

Yes, that's nice, but as I said before what you've said here does not indicate that you understand what you have been quoting.

halonachos wrote:
Yeah because you are always right.

When I argue with you, yes, that's the case.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:

site wrote:Saving represents a decision to postpone consumption by saving money out of disposable income. Why do people choose to save their incomes? There are many motivations for saving:

Yes, that's nice, but as I said before what you've said here does not indicate that you understand what you have been quoting.

halonachos wrote:
Yeah because you are always right.

When I argue with you, yes, that's the case.

Except for just now when I said that the site had a bit agreeing with my base definitions and you said you didn't. So that means you have been incorrect at least twice in as many posts because you said that you are always correct when you argue with me. You can say that I "don't understand what I am quoting" but regardless it is a quote from the site that agrees with me and invalidates your precocious pompousness my duck-billed friend.

Dogma, take the limelight away from your face so you can actually see and then maybe read what I have been posting.

Saving=not spending money
Spending=spending money

Easy and basic concept that cannot be argued against because it is basic. When I decide to not spend my money I am saving it, when I am using it to purchase an item I am spending it. I would like you to present a case where I am spending money on an item and it is counted as saving it.

EDIT: And yes I did indeed choose 'precocious' and 'pompousness' purposefully. Its just because its a small bit of alliteration and I enjoy alliteration.

halonachos wrote:
Except for just now when I said that the site had a bit agreeing with my base definitions and you said you didn't. So that means you have been incorrect at least twice in as many posts because you said that you are always correct when you argue with me. You can say that I "don't understand what I am quoting" but regardless it is a quote from the site that agrees with me and invalidates your precocious pompousness my duck-billed friend.

I am pompous, and often try to be, so thank you for acknowledging my success.

In any case, when I dispute your understanding of X, you cannot use X as a means of proving that you understand X.

halonachos wrote:
Easy and basic concept that cannot be argued against because it is basic.

The fact that X is basic does not indicate that it cannot be argued over.

halonachos wrote:
When I decide to not spend my money I am saving it, when I am using it to purchase an item I am spending it.

What are you doing when you acquire a certificate of deposit by legitimate means?

Am I weird or something b ecause I think we should get back to bashing/defending Cain's 999 plan?

Oh Dogma, you once again go for the "understanding" angle, yet you are still incorrect. Something can still agree with me, and I can still agree with it, even if a mutual understanding(knowledge wise) does not exist. You were still wrong in the statement that the site did not say something that agreed with what I said.

A "Certificate of Deposit", a.k.a a C.D. is a, hard to say this, "better" way of investing more money. Its an account that normally has a better interest rate, but in return you cannot use that money for awhile. This however is "saving" because you are not spending the money on a product, you are investing it into a form of savings account.

I don't personally have a CD, but have been thinking about putting money in for one when I can. I have a savings and a checking account, I don't use the money in the savings account and I use the money in my checking account. In basic terms I use my checking for spending, and I use my savings for saving.

If I get a CD I am postponing the use of that money for some good in order to save it and gain more interest on it than I would a savings account.

halonachos wrote:Oh Dogma, you once again go for the "understanding" angle, yet you are still incorrect. Something can still agree with me, and I can still agree with it, even if a mutual understanding(knowledge wise) does not exist. You were still wrong in the statement that the site did not say something that agreed with what I said.

You might agree with something by accident, which is not given form in your expression, but your inability to express something that is consistent with said agreement implies the absence of understanding; hence my criticism.

I can say "Jesus was the son of God." but that doesn't mean I understand what the statement means.

halonachos wrote:
If I get a CD I am postponing the use of that money for some good in order to save it and gain more interest on it than I would a savings account.

But you used the money by acquiring a CD.

I don't "use" money in order to get a CD. I am taking money that I have and putting it into a modified/glorified savings account.

The money will come back to me at the end of a set amount of time along with whatever interest I have earned.

Dogma, I understand the difference between saving and spending on the basic level. The site posted the definition of saving at a basic level. The basic definition agreed with my basic understanding.

You were wrong dogma, you can beat around the bush all you want but you are indeed wrong. Hell you'll probably continue posting for pages after I put you on ignore just to make yourself feel better. So yes you are now officially on my ignore list due to your propensity for precocious pompousness. You are not a success yet I may remind you so it would be in your best interest to save face and maintain a certain level of humbleness before you can claim to being so great.

Goodbye my ego-inflating friend.

schadenfreude wrote:The operative word there is tends, and there is a world behind that word. You can also replace the word tend with should or need to. Which leads me to my point; there is a lot of potential downward social mobility and social Darwinism when it comes to the rich. The rich who do not save (which tends to be the new rich that come from lower or middle class backgrounds often making their fortunes from the music industry, entertainment industry, or professional athletes) will not remain rich if they don't save. There are plenty of rich people that mismanaged their money into bankruptcy. The fact is the rich who to not save a larger % of their income than the middle class don't remain rich and don't pass down a family fortune to their children. The conclusion liberals such as yourself can draw from the fact I put down is that the prudent thing for the rich to do with any future tax breaks the republicans give them would be to save most of the money because the rich don't get to stay rich unless they are prudent with their money. It's the largest flaw with theory of trickle down economics.

It isn't really about being more prudent with their money, it's more to do with marginal return. When you're making $10,000 a year and taking an hour long bus trip to work everyone morning, then you really want the money to buy a car. Coming across an extra $1,000, 10% of your yearly income, then you can go out and buy a car, cut your daily commute in half and improve your standard of living a whole lot. On the other hand, if you're making $500,000 and you come across an extra $50,000, 10% of your income, what are you going to do with it? Buy a third Audi? Your needs at that level just aren't as critical, spending another dollar just doesn't improve your life that much. As a result, there is a tendency to save more of any additional money that comes in.

It's also why I believe that tax breaks to the upper middle class (80 to 200k/year professionals) will produce much greater economic stimulation than tax breaks to the upper class (Those that don't need to work at all for a living).

While I might disagree with the size of the salaries paid to CEOs and senior executives of companies, I wouldn't for one second say those people don't work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:But you used the money by acquiring a CD.

The purchase of a CD is an act of saving.

I think he was referring to those with enough wealth that they can live entirely off of capital gains and the like.

Sometimes I pass my frustration regarding certain positions others take on to them even when they make legitimate points.

Just saying.

dogma wrote:Sometimes I pass my frustration regarding certain positions others take on to them even when they make legitimate points.

Just saying.

Oh, okay. I did not see that.