Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Ah, a fellow Husky, I was a senior when the men's and women's teams won the championships in the same year.
You're right. I keep typing statistics and that's the completely incorrect term. I'm a jackass in that aspect. You aren't ruffling my political feathers at all... mostly because, like usual from very partisan people, you think I'm a liberal because I disagree with you.
And every time someone proves you wrong, you change the context of your original statement. First, who benefited more from the change in policy, then it's who appreciates it more, now it's whoever pays more overall is screwed? Benefits can be quantified, appreciation cannot.
If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill, he'll certainly appreciate it more than someone on Wall Street that cashed in a $1M deal. But the bum certainly didn't benefit more.
|
You're all over the place. You even sort of proved my point.
Consider the bum getting $100 or Warren Buffet getting $1 million. The $1 million is meaningless to Buffet, it doesn't change his life at all. $100 to a homeless person can have a very meaningful impact (that's the 'diminishing marginal returns' I was referring to).
A bum "makes out better" getting $100 than Buffet does getting $1 million. You practically said that yourself. Because the $100 adds more incrementalutility to the bum's life than $1 million does to Buffet.
Same logic with the tax decrease, it's the same thing.