Skip to comments.
Sometimes, a Tax Cut for the Wealthy Can Hurt the Wealthy
New York Times ^
| November 24, 2005
| ROBERT H. FRANK
Posted on 11/24/2005 11:05:58 AM PST by nickcarraway
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
Robert H. Frank has taughtintroductory economics at Cornell University since 1972. He is co-author, with Ben S. Bernanke, of "Principles of Microeconomics."
Have at it...
To: nickcarraway
He is an economics teacher approved by NYT. What more do we need?
2
posted on
11/24/2005 11:09:00 AM PST
by
arthurus
(Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE.)
To: nickcarraway
I agree. His argument is purely economic not political. Platitutes are not going to make the reality go away. We are fat becoming Brazil. (before you flame, I vote Republican down the line). Nevertheless, economic reality is economic reality.
3
posted on
11/24/2005 11:12:56 AM PST
by
The Cuban
To: nickcarraway
Well, but in the terms of his "logic", were I a "wealthy" person with a mansion [which I, regrettably, am not] - having everyone else on my street living in mansions as well would not make me happy, but - since happiness is by contrast - driving past a group of penniless bums on a street corner most certainly would.
4
posted on
11/24/2005 11:14:56 AM PST
by
GSlob
To: nickcarraway
I didn't know that the NY Times published comic strips.
5
posted on
11/24/2005 11:15:03 AM PST
by
garyhope
(.)
To: nickcarraway
well-being depends less on how much people consume in absolute terms than on the social context in which consumption occurs. I'm in poverty if my house is smaller than yours. Plus that gives me the right to apply for welfare and steal from you. Plus if you have a new mercedes and I only have a new honda, I'm poor and entitled to food stamps and medicaid.
6
posted on
11/24/2005 11:17:12 AM PST
by
staytrue
To: nickcarraway
In the United States, however, we enact tax cuts for the wealthy and cut public services for the needy.What cuts. President Bush has overseen the largest expansion in Medicare since the Johnson Administration.
I should point out that conservatives don't favour "cuts" per se - we just don't want the government to be providing services to the poor, as they're so crap at it. No conservative wants cuts in charitable work, unless we're talking corruption in the Red Cross.
Regards, Ivan
7
posted on
11/24/2005 11:20:47 AM PST
by
MadIvan
(You underestimate the power of the Dark Side - http://www.sithorder.com/)
To: nickcarraway
A careful reading of the evidence suggests... There's an important difference between "careful" and "selective".
8
posted on
11/24/2005 11:20:54 AM PST
by
Starve The Beast
(I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused)
To: The Cuban
Give me a break. This is the same-old tired Marxism that's been debunked day in and day out.
Comment #10 Removed by Moderator
To: GSlob
I prefer that the wealthy continue to consume, and if tax cuts help them to consume, then give them tax cuts. Every time they consume, I have a shot at their money. When the Gov. taxes it from them it goes to someone else, usually someone not willing to compete for it.
11
posted on
11/24/2005 11:27:43 AM PST
by
D Rider
To: flashbunny
And most of these "public services" wouldn't be needed if everyone gets to keep more of their money.
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
No it is the old economic theory of utility. What is better, a mansion ins a cess pool, or a mansion surrounded by other mansions? He is saying society at large, is turning into a cesspool.
To: The Cuban
No it is the old economic theory of utility. What is better, a mansion ins a cess pool, or a mansion surrounded by other mansions? He is saying society at large, is turning into a cesspool. Wrong. The author stereotypically defines the wealthy. First of all, most of the wealthy live modestly and in normal homes. Second of all, it's their money. None of the author's business what people live in or what they buy.
To: The Cuban
I'll agree with you on the two-tiered thing -- but note, this has happened before and the system corrected itself.
15
posted on
11/24/2005 11:34:54 AM PST
by
durasell
To: The Cuban
Dosn't the poorest ten percent of the U.S. have a better quality of life then anywhere else in the world. Often better than a higher percentile in other nations?
16
posted on
11/24/2005 11:39:45 AM PST
by
nickcarraway
(I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
No. Let me change the situation. Is it good to own a ford escort when there are no roads to drive it on or own a ford escort when there is a road system to ride it on. His argument is not dependent on a particular definition of wealth.
To: nickcarraway
He is not arguing that it is not. He is arguing the opposite of "in a rising tide all boats rise". He is arguing that the tide is falling.
To: The Cuban
Based on what evidence? Standard of living has been rising in this country.
19
posted on
11/24/2005 11:46:35 AM PST
by
nickcarraway
(I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
To: nickcarraway
There are serious structural flaws with the current economy.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson