The point is not how much debt you have. The point is whether you are increasing or decreasing your net worth. Households who are on the part of the C line left of (above) the 45 degree line are decreasing their net worth (dissaving). Households who are on the part of the C line to the right of (below) the 45 degree line are increasing their net worth (saving).

The MPC is nothing more, or less, than the slope of the C line. A constant MPC means a C line of constant slope. Ask your economics professor, or someone else you trust (I am not in that group) about whether the C line has a constant slope.

Here you go Skrum, from another university:
http://business.baylor.edu/Tom_kelly/2307ch9.htm

A conservative university might I add

From the professor you just cited:

"The slope of the consumption function is the MPC. Because the slope of a line constant everywhere along the line, the MPC for any linear consumption function will be constant at all levels of income."

Try again.

Lol the point is C isn't constant per DI. And MPC is only indirectly influenced by DI. C is a straight-line for a given Household (in theory) but not for the aggregate of households.

By the way I love how you ignored the first sources I posted which directly say the rich have a lower MPC. These last links were to help you understand.

I think this essay might be the sort of thing you want skrum: p://www.thomaspalley.com/docs/research/Modigliani_RPIJEBO.pdf
Now that you understand that MPC is always lower for higher income families will you renounce the flawed economics of your political ideology?

Boner:

I'm looking for data, numbers. I didn't look up your original cite because it didn't wrap on my screen, I couldn't tell whether it was one cite or several, and chloe's (much shorter) you provided.

But now I went back and looked. Chapter 9's discussion question asked why do poor people have a lower MPS (higher MPC) because they may spend all of something that they are given. No data source. And you have to look not only at the immediate expenditure (directly observable) but the associated increase in dissaving (not directly observable).

I have looked at the Thomas Palley paper. It's main point is that Keynes predicted that richer people would have a lower MPC (that's why the paper shows up in a Google search) but that his hypothesis wasn't simply borne up by the numbers!

The Palley paper cites a paper by Krueger and Perri that examines the question as to why in the last 25 years there has been an increase in inequality of income but not a correspondingly large increase in inequality of consumption. A decrease in MPC with income would explain it, but would not be compatible with data that show that APC has remained fairly constant.

Krueger and Perri's analysis of the data suggest that the cause of difference in growth of consumption inequality and income equality is the increase in the availability of uncollateralized credit and of insurance.

Incedentally, we are entering a golden age for economic research. The databases that were available only on paper at Federal repositories at the time I was getting my Ph.D. are now available online to everyone. Something to consider if you are considering economics as a research field.

I hope this was an attempt to kill the site altogether instead of an attempt to have an actual debate