3 ms·

Just taxing the 1% will have complicated economic consequences, won't it? That is, it's more of a knee jerk reaction than anything. Taxes go up, GDP goes down,

• dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Taxes go up, GDP goes down [citation needed] > and that effects the poor. Even if it did happen, and did effect the poor, there's nothing to say the net effect is negative. GDP and the condition of the poor have no necessary relationship; you have to consider distribution as well as aggregate level. > I don't think we really live in what people think of as "America" anymore What does that even mean? > We're all still attached to these old ideas but in reality it's a lot different. What old ideas? What's different? > You know, it's time to recompile and see what's broke. That metaphor doesn't make any sense in this context.
  • nobody271 8y ago
    > [citation needed] A high school understanding of economics, any book on the subject, or a google search. > Even if it did happen, and did effect the poor, there's nothing to say the net effect is negative. GDP and the condition of the poor have no necessary relationship; you have to consider distribution as well as aggregate level. Yeah, it's complicated. That's why a simple solution like "tax the 1%" might not be a good idea. > What does that even mean? It means times change. > What old ideas? What's different? You're kind of getting on my nerves. > That metaphor doesn't make any sense in this context. Have a good day.