These are facts. Facts denied on the right-wing of politics, of course, but facts nonetheless. All I am describing is the lower marginal propensity to consume amongst those well off compared to those on lower incomes. That this is a fact is obvious: the wealthy must consume less as a proportion of income or they would not be wealthy. And we do need to address that inequality as a result.

Nope. A trustafarian can – many do – spend 110% of their income. They do become less rich as a result but it’s not, therefore, true that the rich must, by merit of being rich, have a lower marginal propensity to consume.

19 thoughts on “Sigh”

  1. The old saying “rags to riches to rags in three generations” rather suggests the wealthy (or their offspring) have tended to consume more than 100% of their income for centuries. However it’s Thursday so today the Spudiverse does things differently.

  2. The prudent minority have saved up some money to provide for their old age – or a rainy day – so Murphy wants to confiscate that so as to make them dependent upon the curajus state. Straight out of Lenin’s playbook.

  3. Seems to ignore that fact the rich could just spend exactly the same proportion of income as the poor. As long as the poor aren’t spending more than 100% it would mean the rich could stay rich.

    It also occurs that being rich is to do with wealth not income, a wealthy retired couple can live off savings and have minimal new income.

  4. we need to tax the rich more because they are rich.

    And before anyone says this is the politics of envy, it isn’t. This is about pure, hard-nosed economics. Being rich is problematic because the rich earn money from being rich.

    Nah, don’t believe you. It’s absolutely the politics of envy.

  5. Being rich is problematic because the rich earn money from being rich.

    What is the welfare state but the poor earning money from being poor? Is that also problematic?

  6. Michael Jackson was burning through so much money, he was heading for bankruptcy at some point in the future. He was effectively borrowing against his assets (like rights to royalties).

    The heir to the MFI fortune is rewilding Scotland. I’m not sure why you’d do that rather than sitting in bed and having hookers and blow delivered all day.

  7. The rich must, by merit of being rich, have a lower marginal propensity to consume
    Sounds doubtful assertion. Aggregated across three generations I suspect the rich consume it all. What the poor seem to do is consume it straight away.
    It’s really a deferred gratification question, and living under a system of decent property rights and easy taxes which allows that investment/deferment for all income levels.

  8. What is the problem with money being with people who have a higher marginal propensity to invest. When you invest money with a company what do they do with it? Put it in a box? Set fire to it (well sometimes). Or maybe it gets spent?

    I thought we were trying to increase the amount of investment that takes place.

  9. Hoping some others on here are going to join his little fireside chat tonight.

    Looking forward to giving him a verbal shoeing if we can arrange it. Or just winding him up enough that he starts losing it on a live stream again.

  10. @isp001
    “I thought we were trying to increase the amount of investment that takes place.”

    You have to understand the Code Of The Left. Investment=taking tax dollars and spending them on mates and votes to get reelected. This virtuous cycle of investment always requires moar tax.

  11. we need to tax the rich more because they are rich.

    It’s not about taxing the rich because they are rich, it’s taxing the rich because Kim Il Kartoffel has got fuck all.

  12. He really hates producing evidence to back up his idiotic opinions. Wealthy people consume less do they? Elton John, Elvis, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards are noted for their frugality are they?

  13. I suppose that in this case, the evidence flatly contradicts his stupid assertion. More than 25% of all income tax revenue is paid by the top 1% of taxpayers, i.e. taxpayers with the highest incomes, and 90% of all income tax revenue is paid by the top 50% of taxpayers with the highest incomes. I suppose his sycophantic commentators don’t feel free to use facts on the common tater’s public display of psychiatric disorder

  14. I’d have thought that basic arithmetic would prove spud’s assertion to be specious… To paraphrase Micauber – Income 10,000, expenditure 90%, result 1,000 “richer”… Income 1,000,000, expenditure 90%, result 100,000 “richer”. When I was at school, 100k was greater than 1K – have things changed since then?

  15. Consumption is evil.
    People deferring consumption and saving are evil.

    At this point we can conclude that he just hates people and dresses up this character flaw in ideological robes.

  16. Another word for “rich” is “retired”. Any prudent person ensures they have more assets than income when they retire, in order to convert those assets into spending in order to stay alive.

    Presumably, Tuppence advocates euthenasia for anybody not employed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *