It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trickle down economics does little to benefit the people. You're an idiot for believing it does.

page: 5
103
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: jjkenobi

The super rich aren't the only people paying taxes... Stop pretending like the super rich are the only ones who keep the government afloat through taxes. It is very dishonest. It is possible to cut taxes for the less than super rich and that is what the OP is advocating, but your rush to denounce wealth redistribution has blinded you.


I didn't say anything about super rich.

And what are you trying to say? The bottom 40% do not contribute financially to the federal govt. They get more in return than they give. It's not disputable, there are actual financial reports out there that tell you this. About $19k on average from what I can find on Google, although most of the financial data is several years old.

Almost half of the USA doesn't contribute to the federal govt.




posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Why does it matter what the poor contribute? Why do you want people who don't have any money to give up the money they don't have anyways? Plus, if they aren't paying taxes already then there is no where we can reduce them to. So bringing them up in the first place is a red herring. But there ARE people who aren't the 1% or above that could use a tax break and would benefit the economy much more. Also, it wouldn't slash government revenues so severely.

To be honest, we shouldn't even be cutting taxes anyways. The economy is finally roaring back to life. We need to raise taxes if anything. Something to get the national interest rate higher so we have a buffer to reduce it for WHEN (read: not if) the economy falters again.

The Republicans are just trying to crash the economy again, and anyone who supports this bill they are trying to pass is riding the bus right along with them. They aren't even ATTEMPTING to pay for this tax reduction either. Another slap in the face of all that is reasonable. Only a fool would believe this bill would be good for us.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: jjkenobi

The super rich aren't the only people paying taxes... Stop pretending like the super rich are the only ones who keep the government afloat through taxes. It is very dishonest. It is possible to cut taxes for the less than super rich and that is what the OP is advocating, but your rush to denounce wealth redistribution has blinded you.


I didn't say anything about super rich.

And what are you trying to say? The bottom 40% do not contribute financially to the federal govt. They get more in return than they give. It's not disputable, there are actual financial reports out there that tell you this. About $19k on average from what I can find on Google, although most of the financial data is several years old.

Almost half of the USA doesn't contribute to the federal govt.


Yep it's terrible that inequality in the the US is bad and 40% of Americansare so underpaid.

That is what you meant isn't it?
edit on 7-11-2017 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   


It is natural for wealth to accumulate to the top 20 percent. Like any resource in the universe. So how do we fight against nature. Idk humans are smart enough to crack that nut Maybe a negative income tax?

I don't think it's right to look at individual wealth as any indication of anything. We should look at poverty. We haven't made much progress is the last 40 years but we've also created more incentive to stay poor.

poverty.ucdavis.edu...

edit on 7-11-2017 by Templeton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: jjkenobi

The super rich aren't the only people paying taxes... Stop pretending like the super rich are the only ones who keep the government afloat through taxes. It is very dishonest. It is possible to cut taxes for the less than super rich and that is what the OP is advocating, but your rush to denounce wealth redistribution has blinded you.


The problem is you need to define what you mean by super rich... one of the big issues in this discussion is that people have different view points as to what constitutes rich or high incomes.

Those who benefit from tax cuts in higher income brackets tend to be the upper middle class or what I would call working rich. These are people who make from $250,000 to $1 million. Basically people who go to work every day. Yes, they make good money but they are not what people think of when you say "rich". These are doctors, lawyers, small business owners, dentists, etc.

There is a world of difference between say my household which could make $500k and a CEO or actor who is making $20 million/yr. We both are part of the 1% income wise, but beyond that we have little to nothing in common. I have more in common with my neighbors who might be two teachers making $150k lifestyle wise. It is kind of like saying that every guy who is taller than 6 foot could be a NBA pro basket ball player because being 6 foot talls puts you in the top 1% in height. The degrees of separation in that 1% are vast.

The $500k family will get taxed like the $20 million guy. To make matters worse, the $500k guy is mostly making w2 wages which gets taxed at a higher rate while the $20 million guy is probably getting most of his income through cap gains or other investment income.

Liberals are very good at using Warren Buffet or other gazillionaires as examples, but then when legislation comes out, it isn't the Warren Buffets who are affected but the every day working stiff making $250k or so.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Well the OP was specific about his idea of reducing taxes on the less than super rich. I guess what you'd call the working rich. It's plain as day in the his OP.

But as I said, I don't even think this is an appropriate time to reduce taxes. They should be increased if anything. But I guess fiscal conservatives only exist when Democrats are in power.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I forgot to add above...

For those saying that the super wealthy aren't affected by taxes, all you have to do is look at the flight of capital from high tax states to low tax states like Florida. There is a reason a lot of hedgefund gazillionaires and athletes call Florida home now and it has nothing to do with sunshine.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

Well the OP was specific about his idea of reducing taxes on the less than super rich. I guess what you'd call the working rich. It's plain as day in the his OP.

But as I said, I don't even think this is an appropriate time to reduce taxes. They should be increased if anything. But I guess fiscal conservatives only exist when Democrats are in power.


It is not plain as day because he is whining about the top 1% receiving most of the tax cut. Once again, you can only cut taxes for those who are paying taxes. The top 1% pay the most taxes and thus will receive the largest share of cut. In addition, you only need to make about $400k to be part of the 1%, so by definition, it is the working rich.

Again, the issue is you guys use the top 1% as this catchall group when it can be anyone making $400k all the way up to Jeff Bezo's billions. Two professionals making $400k have ZERO in common with Jeff Bezos.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Yes, the "top 1%". Not all of the 1%.

Again, the issue is you guys use the top 1% as this catchall group when it can be anyone making $400k all the way up to Jeff Bezo's billions. Two professionals making $400k have ZERO in common with Jeff Bezos.

Sounds like that is exactly what YOU are doing with the OP's wording. You keep trying to prove that the working rich exist when that is who the OP was referring to when saying the tax cuts should have favored them moreso than the super rich. Them and the less than working rich. The upper middle class and middle class with dependents. Also, this would result in less of a reduction in government revenue because (like you pointed out) less taxes would be cut.

I literally see zero social benefit to trickle down economics. Zero. All I see are negatives.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated




There is a world of difference between say my household which could make $500k and a CEO or actor who is making $20 million/yr. We both are part of the 1% income wise, but beyond that we have little to nothing in common. I have more in common with my neighbors who might be two teachers making $150k lifestyle wise. It is kind of like saying that every guy who is taller than 6 foot could be a NBA pro basket ball player because being 6 foot talls puts you in the top 1% in height. The degrees of separation in that 1% are vast.


You may think that you're part of the super rich 1% but I don't think you're even close.


The super-rich, according to Beeghley, are those able to live off their wealth without depending on occupation-derived income. This demographic constitutes roughly 0.9% of American households. Beeghley's definition of the super-rich is congruent with the definition of upper class employed by most other sociologists. The top .01 percent of the population, with an annual income of $9.5 million or more, received 5% of the income of the United States in 2007. These 15,000 families have been characterized as the "richest of the rich"

en.wikipedia.org...

It's part of the problem with this topic that the whole terminology has to be defined first.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Templeton

And yet the massive drop in the 1960s coincides with Johnson's War on Poverty that effectively established the modern approach to welfare. If what you're saying is true, wouldn't one expect that dip not to happen.

At the same time while there is a small dip following the passing of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 which gutted most of the provisions from the Economic Opportunity Act, poverty levels shortly returned to pre-PRWOA levels. It's also worth noting that the PRWOA was passed at the start of the Dot-Com Boom, so the economy was already improving.

Another thing worth noting is that the spikes in poverty seemingly correlate with time periods where trickle-down economics are employed. We see an increase right around the time Reagan's policies come into play. That increase doesn't return to pre-Reagan levels until the economic recovery of the mid-90s. Then we see it start increasing again under the Bush II administration culminating in the 2008 recession.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Templeton

And yet the massive drop in the 1960s coincides with Johnson's War on Poverty that effectively established the modern approach to welfare. If what you're saying is true, wouldn't one expect that dip not to happen.

At the same time while there is a small dip following the passing of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 which gutted most of the provisions from the Economic Opportunity Act, poverty levels shortly returned to pre-PRWOA levels. It's also worth noting that the PRWOA was passed at the start of the Dot-Com Boom, so the economy was already improving.

Another thing worth noting is that the spikes in poverty seemingly correlate with time periods where trickle-down economics are employed. We see an increase right around the time Reagan's policies come into play. That increase doesn't return to pre-Reagan levels until the economic recovery of the mid-90s. Then we see it start increasing again under the Bush II administration culminating in the 2008 recession.


The poverty rate was already declining rapidly PRIOR to the War on Poverty so one can conclude the War on Poverty was not responsible. In addition, the poverty rate has generally remained fairly constant since the War on Poverty despite spending trillions so one can also conclude the War on Poverty has been ineffective.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Thanks, I did note things but I wasn't able to cross reference the chart before posting. We need to reframe the argument to stop focusing on the rich and focus on the poor. Taxing the rich just puts more money in a system that pays for lifelong politicians pensions. We are putting the cart before the horse. How can we use tax money to help the poor? Then we can talk about if we need to raise taxes or cut other programs to fund it.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Edumakated




There is a world of difference between say my household which could make $500k and a CEO or actor who is making $20 million/yr. We both are part of the 1% income wise, but beyond that we have little to nothing in common. I have more in common with my neighbors who might be two teachers making $150k lifestyle wise. It is kind of like saying that every guy who is taller than 6 foot could be a NBA pro basket ball player because being 6 foot talls puts you in the top 1% in height. The degrees of separation in that 1% are vast.


You may think that you're part of the super rich 1% but I don't think you're even close.


The super-rich, according to Beeghley, are those able to live off their wealth without depending on occupation-derived income. This demographic constitutes roughly 0.9% of American households. Beeghley's definition of the super-rich is congruent with the definition of upper class employed by most other sociologists. The top .01 percent of the population, with an annual income of $9.5 million or more, received 5% of the income of the United States in 2007. These 15,000 families have been characterized as the "richest of the rich"

en.wikipedia.org...

It's part of the problem with this topic that the whole terminology has to be defined first.


My whole point is that I am NOT part of the super rich even though I may be in the 1%. You just proved my point.

The other issue is there is a difference between wealth and income. Income is what one makes in any given year. Wealth is what you've accumulated. You can make a lot in one year income wise and not actually be wealthy (see rappers and athletes) or you can have a fairly low income and be extremely wealthy (think retired couple who make make $150k in retirement but have $10 million in assets).

Tax policy tends to affect those who are making high incomes, but not necessarily wealthy. The income rolls are fluid. Most of those who are in the top 1% in any given year, will not stay there. If you sell a house and make a large profit, you will likely be considered part of the 1% in a given year.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I thought Bernie moved the goalpost. It's the top .1% now. Maybe OP didn't get the memo.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Templeton

UBI. A basic income for everyone might be the solution to many problems, poverty included. I'm pretty sure about that.

A basic income really could end poverty forever



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Templeton
a reply to: Edumakated

I thought Bernie moved the goalpost. It's the top .1% now. Maybe OP didn't get the memo.


They move it when it is convenient to their argument. Like I said earlier, all you will hear about is Warren Buffet this, Warren Buffet that but when policies actually get written all of a sudden $250k/yr in income means you are a millionaire.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

It's funny how we've retracked the argument to blame Democrats/liberals when it is the Republicans who wrote the bill and the Democrats have nothing currently to do with taxes.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

It's funny how we've retracked the argument to blame Democrats/liberals when it is the Republicans who wrote the bill and the Democrats have nothing currently to do with taxes.


So why are liberals complaining? I don't think the bill goes far enough with tax cuts and simplification.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

The misnomer is in the title really, because it's should not trickle down it should darn well flow!

Opening the financial faucet and spreading the wealth and power amongst the people in a hell of a lot more even manner is the only way we will ever dig ourselves out of the financial and socioeconomic pit in which we find ourselves.

Stands to reason really but for that to happen 1% of the population will need to lose 90% of there accumulated wealth which is why it will never happen.




top topics



 
103
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join