Apologies: this will be a more-than-usual technical rant, involving the economic concept of "utility".
Let's first consider the 'median income' household. For the sake of simplicity, let's imagine that the median household earns $50K/year (the true income of a 'median household' is somewhat less than $50K).
Again simplifying, let's say this is $1K/week.
Give 'em a tax break of $1K.
That's 2% of their annual income - a full week's income!
What'll they do with it?
SPEND IT! - on the kids' shoes, on a new grill. This represents a real BONUS!
- and they'll almost certainly convert it into economy-boosting SPENDING!
$50K vs $51K - this is a LOT of $$$.
... could be the difference between kid going to UNM next semester or not.
Okay, now let's give that same 2% to upper 95th%-ile.
95th%-ile of households make roughly $200K.
2% = $4K.
So - what are they going to do with the extra $4,000?
- well, MAYBE they put a down-payment down on a Lexus. Maybe.
$200,000 vs $204,000... just not that much difference
- that extra 2% ain't worth all that much to 'em.
How 'bout households making $1M/year? 2% tax-relief = $20K.
What, EXACTLY, will they do with this extra $$$?
$20,000 on top of $1,000,000???
My bet - little or nothing! - they'll save it.
They've already bought everything they need or want.
UNM? They're already paying for kid to go to Harvard!
Shoes? You're kidding, right?
Lexus? They - both of 'em - drive Mercedes!
$20K for them is a drop in the bucket.
It - that extra $20K - has little "marginal utility".
Again: $1,000,000 vs $1,020,000 just doesn't mean all that much.
The extra $20K hardly matters.
This is the basic idea of "utility":
- Do you FEEL richer?
- Do you ACT richer?
That extra 2% for the $1M/year household just doesn't mean all that much...
It means far, far less than the 2% for the $50K/year household - you know, the rest of us!
... so, tell me again why GOPers want to give more $$$ to the $1M/year folks???
Recall, consumer spending is 70% of U.S. economy!
- What we oughta be doing with economic/tax policy is giving $$$ to folks who'll SPEND IT!... and, sadly, I admit, taking $$$ away from the idle rich who just SIT ON THEIR $$$.
(Oh: that pejorative "idle rich" comment?
Here's a dollar:
Here's another dollar:
What's the difference? Well - that first dollar represents a raise for the wage-earning worker, taxed at marginal rate of 20%.
That second dollar? It's counted as "capital gains"... taxed at 15% for the $1M/year fellow! Yeah: the IDLE rich!)
[Recall also: corporations are now sitting on more $$$ than they know what to do with.
More $$$ than at any time in post-WWII era.
Are they creating jobs with the $$$?
NO!
Are they investing the $$$ to increase production?
NO!
- they're SITTING ON IT!...
... Tell me again how increased taxes on the well-to-do are "job-killing". Please.]
Daily Show Parodies Of Those Christmas Movies
2 hours ago
Good stuff on your page Russ!! Now if only the DC whores would listen.
ReplyDeleteI want to say up front that I totally agree with you on this, and that the following question is just me kind of playing Devil's Advocate:
ReplyDeleteI thought saving was supposed to be equal to investment. ("Saving" being putting money in a bank account, as opposed to under a mattress.) Since the equation for GDP is Consumption plus Investment plus Gov't Spending plus Net Exports, shouldn't a rich guy saving $1k be the same for GDP as a regular guy spending $1k?
The only difference seems to me that the rich guy contributes to investment, whereas regular guy contributes to consumption.
Again, I want to stress that I really do agree with this post. I'm just asking 'cause I'm curious.
The money the rich guy socks away is, at the moment, sitting idle - banks aren't lending (more to the point: no one is rushing out to borrow!), businesses aren't expanding production capability. Japan's "lost decade" is a good example: tons of "savings" - lots of money - but no investment. The cash was sequestered.
ReplyDeleteThis was one of Keynes's counter-intuitive results: it is possible for savings to exceed investment for substantial time periods.
current mess is due to lack of demand... which makes it particularly irksome that St. Reagan's 'supply-side' paradigm seems to inform the brilliant folks now in charge.
unless demand increases, we're stuck where we are.
[then again: what i know about economics can be written in big block letters on a postage stamp!]
"what i know about economics can be written in big block letters on a postage stamp!"
ReplyDeleteWell, based on this post alone, you clearly know vastly more than many of the alleged economics experts on TV. Thanks!