Since the top 5% is responsible for 37% of all consumer spending, wouldn’t it be a good thing if they had more?
January 12th, 2012 | 
Author: Question by grandma zaza: Since the top 5% is responsible for 37% of all consumer spending, wouldn’t it be a good thing if they had more?
…..money to spend?
2/3rds of the economy is consumer spending. If the rich make more, they spend more.
They are also the job creators.
They are also the majority investors.
They also pay 60% of all federal income tax, so if they make more money, tax revenue increases.
If the rich make more money, doesn’t everyone win?
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/08/05/us-economy-is-increasingly-tied-to-the-rich/
Or would Liberals prefer to just shoot themselves in the face?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-31/lack-of-consumer-spending-points-to-u-s-economic-slowdown.html
It did work under Reagan. Revenue increased almost 25%.
Hey Delina! How are you??
A yacht takes a couple of years to build. It creates jobs, and as John Kerry seems to understand, generates hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue.
She’s so beautiful!! She coming next week for a few weeks! I can not wait! Skype is getting old, but it will have to do.
Best answer:
Answer by Me
Libs will hate you for that one.
Add your own answer in the comments!
Popular Posts:
- Stocks Posting Sharp Losses In Early Afternoon Trading – U.S. Commentary
- TIer 5 Unemployment Extension Update 05/15/2010
- How does one qualify to receive the FED-ED unemployment insurance extension in California?
- NCESC Unemployment Benefits – www.ncesc.com « Breaking News
- How can i get money?I am a jobless person and don’t have any source of income with me.?
Tags:
This policy proved to be an abysmal failure under Reagan.
The “rich” never trickled down. Instead, they used the money to move their manufacturing to India and China.
No. They have plenty of money to spend. Less than 30% of tax cuts actually stimulate the real economy.
Lets give the 95% some help, those who spend 63% and use the top 5% to pay for it.
That makes absolutely no sense…
Don’t you get it? The top 5% spend 37%. Doesn’t leave much for the rest of us huh? And they don’t pay 60%.
No, how much more do you want them to get.
83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans
In 1950, the ratio of the average executive’s paycheck to the average worker’s paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one
The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth
YES!
The people who reap the benefits of the rich being taxed spend all of their money on cigarettes, booze and gambling, which is all heavily taxed so it comes back to them, along with more money from the rich.
The rich realistically keep the place afloat.
I am not rich. I am part of the working poor. I don’t buy expensive cars that need to be serviced. I don’t buy expensive clothes at the mall. I don’t have a yacht. I don’t fly 35 times a year.
The rich do…
I think we should round up all the poor people and turn them into food for the dogs of the Rich (the REAL Americans.) It makes perfect sense. Just like giving hundred thousand dollar gift bags to movie stars at the Oscars. Or serving free booze in First Class but making sure those in Coach pay $ 5 per drink. American JUSTICE!
No it doesn’t whatsoever. How much money do they have in the bank just standing there not being spent and you want to give them MORE????
It makes as much sense as eradicating the “excess humans”
No not everyone wins, they are the only ones that win. If everyone won we wouldn’t have 5% of people driving the economy.
I’m good thanks and you? How’s the grand kids?
Allow me to recommend a book on why it’s not a good idea the rich get even more money (if that’s even possible after already controlling 90% of it)
The Financialization of the Economy
By John Bellamy Foster
Well give her lots of hugs and kisses!
Andy F gave an excellent explanation. It’s pretty much what’s on the book. That and the fact that there’s actually an excess of money looking to make more money out of MONEY! and completely divorced of the real economy, poducing goods and services which is why it all was a house of cards when you had so many people making bets on a property that none of them owned Credit Default Swaps etc.
There isn’t a lack of money, especially not among the rich Zaza. The contrary is the problem. Namely hoarding
you need spending yes but if to much money go one way or another can, not spend enough to keep system going
This type of question confuses the liberals because they can’t see past their own sense of entitlement.
If they can’t be rich, nobody else should be either.
When you suggest they work, they scoff. Why work when they can demand a “fair redistribution” of the wealth made by the top 5%.
Since the top 10% also earn 50% of all income in the U.S., they already have plenty to spend. Because that means 90 % of the rest of us earn the other 50%.
I’d like more to spend.
Why do some of the righties think that rich people actually worked hard and earned every penny they have? They obviously don’t know many rich people.
That is absolutely screwy to believe that making a rich person richer is somehow going to be better for a typical middle class taxpayer. If you want TRUE results, go invest and start your own business…stuff like that. Don’t depend on the super wealthy to help you.
No. You are out of your mind. The top 10% control %90 of the wealth. That means %90 scrounge around for that last %10. Let me put this in perspective:
You have a pizza and there are ten people and ten slices. One person comes up and takes 9 slices and says to the other 9 people to fight over the last 1! I don’t care if he bought the entire pizza! You don’t do that to people… Funny how common decency to your fellow man has been demonized as “socialism” as soon as we got a black president…
How do Ma and Pa Kettle benefit from Daddy Warbucks buying a new yacht?
No. If the rich get more and more money relative to everyone else, a couple of bad things happen:
1) they drive up prices for consumer goods for everyone else, at least in some markets, making it harder for middle-class people to afford the cost of living.
2) they also tend to invest a good deal of their income — either in more capitalist production, in some cases, or in gold & real estate & fine art, as hedges against inflation, or — in some cases — in hedge funds and sheer speculation.
We’ve just seen the kind of damage that over-investment in hedge funds and financial speculation can do to the U.S. economy. If we tilt the distribution of income towards the rich so that they have an incentive to more investing of this kind, we’re asking for trouble.
Also, most “real production” of goods in this country — some 63% of it, by your count — depends on consumer demand from “non-rich” Americans.
Many of these people have been living on credit card debt, home equity lines of credit and other forms of debt for a generation now. With their relative incomes declining, millions of middle-class Americans have tried to keep up their lifestyle through running up debt in increasing volumes. They urgently need a raise, and probably federal tax relief, to get off of this destructive treadmill.
If we keep skewing income towards the super-rich, however, middle class consumption levels have to fall, endangering any economic recovery. Or alternatively, middle-class and poor Americans just have to keep piling up more debt — which could be suicidal.
depends, will they spend it… it seems savings have been going up, particularly among the upper 5 percent…
we have some of the lowest tax rates on the rich in the history of the nation… yet they are contracting their spending over the past 3 years?
it seems that tax rates don’t impact spending…
Can’t speak for the top 5%, but as a taxpaying member of the top 10% I can answer- not necessarily.
While letting the Bush Tax cuts lapse raises my taxes, and I will additionally take a hit with the capital gains, I won’t be spending more. BUT, I won’t be spending less. In the end, the change is to my net worth over time. I will have less to leave my children and grandchildren, who I assure you will be just fine.
Flawed numbers and bogus. Do the rich people eat 10 hamburgers/
It worked under Reagan and would have worked in a similar fashion under bush if the Clinton hadn’t passed his bill reducing the financial regulations on business. That bill directly caused the use of projections being used as actually figures inflating a company’s worth. That directly caused the dot com bust in 99/2000 which started this whole recession. Bush attempted to follow some of Reagen’s economic plan but it was a different environment so the best he could hope for was stabilization and very small growth until we were out of this. The drop came when obama was voted in and the uncertainty of his proposed fiscal plan, coupled with the lack of specifics. Caused the collapse that we are now in. Actually if nothing had been done to stimulate the economy projections put us almost exactly where we are present day. If nothing else this shows that obama stimulus didn’t do a thing besides increase debt.
yes