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: 6
103
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Exactly. And most of the super rich don't have an income like the normal drones, which is why the inheritance tax would make more sense here.




posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Because this tax bill affects liberals just as much as it affects conservatives and it REALLY irks me that conservatives think they can get away with drafting and signing legislation without Democrat support.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

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.


And here we have the problem and solution: taxing income is rather inefficient (in absolute terms and in terms of ‘leveling the playing field’ or the really kick-ass one, paying their ‘fair share’) — the very example you laid out speaks to it — at certain thresholds, where individuals will choose ‘leisure’ or exploiting loopholes over earning a wage. So, if the 1% is the benchmark in our public policy discussions, wealth should be taxed (taxes on wealth are lax, relatively speaking, save for the estate tax, which is fairly easy to avoid because given that amount of wealth tax lawyers are cost-effective) at certain thresholds.

Savings should never be penalized, but hording wealth doesn’t contribute in nearly the same fashion. Disincentiving earning a wage is bad policy. Income taxes are, in general, less-than-optimal policy. If one is going to tackle economic inequality, one should focus on disincentiving the hording of wealth (a history of the estate tax provides some perspective).

We are focused on the wrong ‘problems’ with respect to finding solutions to the growing economic inequality. Looking for solutions to the wrong problems doesn’t accomplish much.
edit on 7-11-2017 by BeefNoMeat because: spelling



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I think the one topic missing from this thread is defining what the criteria is to label Trickle-Down Economics a success. What outcome would you need to see to declare Trickle-Down Economics a success? I'm not sure if it was a success or not but these are the facts. Let's take a close look at the Grand Daddy of trickle down, Reaganomics.

When Reagan took office in 1980 he took charge of a country in the grips of a recession and crippling stagflation(persistent high inflation combined with high unemployment and stagnant demand in a country's economy.). Prior Presidents attempted to combat this economic problem by increasing the governments involvement within the economy, Reagan decided to go the opposite direction.

Reagan's plan had 4 central ideas



  • Reduce the growth of government spending
  • Cut both income taxes and capital gains taxes
  • Cut Regulations on Businesses
  • Reduce the expansion of the money supply


To one degree or another he was able to accomplish each of the items in his plan. Inflation was brought back to a manageable level and the recession was ended thanks to the tax cuts. If you stop here, you can call the plan a massive success but unfortunately economic decisions have long tails and it can take decades to understand the complete results of said decisions.

Also, as a result of these policies the federal debt tripled from $997 billion in 1981 to $2.857 trillion in 1989. Also, this set us on a course of staggering wealth inequality, with the top 1% receiving the vast majority of the income gains since 1980.




Also, wealth concentration levels are returning to levels not seen since the 1920's when families like the Vanderbilt's and Rockefeller's dominated the business landscape.



Source

So Why is Income Inequality a bad thing

1. Wealthier people have an unacceptable degree of control over the lives of the rest of us.

If a wealthy person gets in trouble with the law, even in cases where they hurt someone else, they often get off with little or no punishment. If need be, I can provide several examples but here is one to wet your appetite. Basically, this kid was too rich to understand right from wrong and got away with killing 4 people. Even recently, Harvey Weinstein used his wealth to go to extraordinary lengths to cover up his misdeeds. This guy literally hired Israeli spies to intimidate and harass his victims. I can go on and on but you get the idea.

2. Economic inequality can undermine the fairness of political institutions.

Think about this, as of 2014 more than half of the members of Congress are millionaires. I don't know about you, but I am not a millionaire and never will be. Our representatives live lives that are for the most part out of touch with the rest of us. As such, they don't understand the issues that we face on a day to day basis and can't govern appropriately. Also, lobbying Congress is an activity that is exclusive to large businesses now. There is almost no way that we the little people can get our voices heard anymore.

3. Economic inequality undermines the fairness of the economic system.

The children of the wealthy are able to afford and attend the best schools, with or without good grades. and have connections in the business world that afford them an exceptional starting point in economy and in life in general. Whereas an individual from a middle class or lower class family will be limited to what schools they can attend. Depending on certain situations they may be unable to go to college at all.


So in summary, yes I believe Trickle Down worked in the 80's to get us out of the recession and to combat inflation but long term I think it is a horrible system that will one day lead to the collapse of the US economy.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Southern Guardian

You numbers are wrong...
taxfoundation.org...
The top 1% earned 20.6% of income in 2014 and paid 39.5% of taxes collected...

I swear, jealousy fed by laziness and entitlement will destroy this country's economy if you get your way.


I think his chart is holdings/savings. We know that year by year the top 20% pays 88% to 95% of all federal taxes, so people are upset that the top 20% actually has savings too. There is a level of income as to what a typical family needs to make to also save money and not just live month to month with only short term emergency savings. That is tricky subject because if a person is 15 to 25 bucks an hour worker their whole life, savings of any kind will be hard. The big question is whether that is the fault of the company or the worker? I lean towards the worker because a generic_01 job pays XX dollars no matter who does it and at the personal level if a person never really improves due to whatever reasons their quality of life will not really improve either.

One side effect is we are a consumer based society and people will spend and get credit (credit is the #1 killer of savings outside of a car and house) to buy all the things they really do not need, but think they do. I see this with the whole 15 bucks minimum wadge debate...why 15 bucks when many small business can not afford to pay that and stay in business. When I looked at what I saw as needs in the 80s compared to today we just have a lot more stuff today that we feel are needs for us to have a normal life, so half of the 15 bucks is paying for needs we really do not need, plus we all look at single living as a right and not a privilege. This means everyone feels it is their right to live on their own and not in a synergistic group.

I guess this comes down to what do people expect for their work with a company. The company I work for has a 401k and they match 4% to your 8% of you income if you put it in, not bad, they also provide free healthcare with 30 dollar co-pay for self and a very reduced monthly premium for family, still not bad. There is a half dozen of other benefits too.

Now If this job that I can leave at anytime with a two week notice to keep PTO etc can provide all that and a nice living wadge what do I care what the CEO makes as long as his leadership provides me a continued growth and a secured job for the next 30 or 40 years?

I don't care what you call it but a company needs to grow to increase jobs and to maintain a long term stable platform for all their employees. Whatever the Government does to support that and not hinder it is where I put my vote.


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



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal




Reduce the expansion of the money supply


That was Paul Volcker and he was a carryover from the Carter administration — if we are to believe the Fed is apolitical.

As you noted, the national debt tripled under Reagan...if that makes any difference to the discussion regarding supply-side economics.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: BeefNoMeat

You are exactly correct. I guess I should have noted that in my post because much of the inflation taming was started by Volcker in the 70's and it was during the Reagan administration that it started to bear fruit.

However, I suppose it is important to note that while the monetary policy Volcker used ultimately worked it did cause the recession of 1981-1982 and high unemployment figures before finally turning things around.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Sure would be nice if some of the $50 Billion the illegal alien workers send back to their families all over the world, actually got recirculated back into our economy, wouldn't it.

Sure sounds like that would be some nice trickle down money to local businesses.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

1. Wealthier people have an unacceptable degree of control over the lives of the rest of us.


Weinstein wealth is 255 million. Most of that was made from investing in successful movies shows etc, so there is no trickle down going on there since he could be 200 million in debt too if he wasn't good at what he does. Now money aside he had a lot of positional power that was not created by his worth, and he abused it. I don't see him getting off now, but if people were willing to get paid off for his miss deeds instead of prosecuting him and get no money that kind of tells you a little about his victims too. Do you think the CEO of Boeing making about 20 million in stock and pay has an "unacceptable degree of control over the lives of the rest of us"? Or how about super rich Billionaires like Zuckerberg who made his billions outside of any trickle down economy?

This is always a talking point and I have never seen any numbers of the evil rich compared to the good rich? All of them evil? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000????



2. Economic inequality can undermine the fairness of political institutions.

As such, they don't understand the issues that we face on a day to day basis and can't govern appropriately. Also, lobbying Congress is an activity that is exclusive to large businesses now. There is almost no way that we the little people can get our voices heard anymore.


And as good sheeple we vote them in over and over, so what does that tell us about the average American? 65 million votes will get a homeless guy in the white house, so what is the problem here once again? Why didn't 65 million vote for Sanders with his socialist views?



3. Economic inequality undermines the fairness of the economic system.

The children of the wealthy are able to afford and attend the best schools, with or without good grades. and have connections in the business world that afford them an exceptional starting point in economy and in life in general. Whereas an individual from a middle class or lower class family will be limited to what schools they can attend. Depending on certain situations they may be unable to go to college at all.


And you drive a Honda and they drive a BMW, but both of you drive, right? The world is not equal, never has been, never will be. I call this game reset syndrome TM... This is where people do not like how the world is so they want to reset it so EVERYONE starts out again as equal like a game. Whether you are rich or poor you need to be good and have drive to be successful. A rich kid can be rich his whole life and do nothing while on drugs just like a poor kid can and both will have crappy lives. A lot of rich people did not do well in college, and the few that go to a Ivy league school with average grades to just get the paper is a extremely small percentage of those who go to the school.

Lets look at Harvard...

50% of those selected to attend in 2016 are non-white with a cost of 67,000 per year. The average student gets 52,000 in student aid, Parents pay 12,000 and a few 1000 is paid for student work. I'm not seeing your, "only rich kids get into the best schools". I would say the only Economic inequality here might be the rich kid that gets in because daddy dumps a lot of money since his kids grades and abilities do not match up...not something that really affects any of us....


In summary.... I think people apply all the evil/horrors that might go on within the rich world to a much higher percentage than reality...hence the "evil rich" label, and typically outside of an extremely small group of people like Gorge Soros and Koch brothers most rich give way more back to society than what people think.


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



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Trickle down theoretically would work much more noticeably if we didn't have a minimum wage + no immigration to compete with + unions coming back in a big way + people refusing to undercut each other when bidding on contact jobs.

A few more things need to be fixed and put into alignment as well.

Capitalism and communism as economic systems can actually work well, but the problem is things like mixing concepts in ways that don't work, foolish dictators, traditional corruption, things like this.

Either system is viable in it's pure form with good leadership, it's we've never actually seen either pure capitalism or pure communism attempted. They would need to be very ethical and moral in their applications as well.

What do think? I'm interested in your opinions on my post. Thanks Southern Guardian.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Just prior to President Obama's 2014 State of the Union Address, media reported that the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nation's wealth; the bottom 80% own 7%; similarly, but later, the media reported, the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent".-wiki.

Soon it will be 99.9% of the wealth in 0.1% of the U.S. population.


The minimum wage was 21$ the reduction from a living wage to slave wage has resulted in the rich pocketing the difference by exploiting the masses, grand theft.
edit on 7-11-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   


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


This sounds like every liberal politician there is. You know, the ones who tax us at higher rates, push through tax packages and payouts as Healthcare Reform and Recovery and then triple the debt in 10 years.

All the while saying lower taxes only benefits the rich....if you are still buying into this and voting YOU my friends are the idiots.

The ones complaining are usually the ones on Federal Aid but have the latest Xbox One X for their kids at Christmas while the middle class is working to pay for those subsidies. They could use a break and that is who this tax package is for. I think they should all be reduced and controlled government spending with heavy cuts will continue to be implemented.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

The minimum wage was 21$ the reduction from a living wage to slave wage has resulted in the rich pocketing the difference by exploiting the masses, grand theft.


What was $21? What is a slave wage and what do you see as a living wage? Should the job type determine the value of the wage in anyway? As example, If you make coffee at a coffee shop what do you feel you should be paid per hour?

If 80% of Americans don't save and are high consumers that means 80% do not see savings i.e. wealth as a big deal....



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



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Check THIS article OUT:

Real world data continues to show no link between corporate cuts and wage increases



Figure A shows the change in state corporate income tax rates from 1980 to 2010 and the change in the inflation-adjusted state median wage in that period. There is no correlation at all visible in the data. This reveals a key truth policymakers should face: boosting wages will require a range of policies, and most of these useful wage-boosting policies will not involve taxes.





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



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

So what you're saying is that both sides are terrible at the economy. I mean Reagan's economic policies tripled the debt, led to stagnation of the middle class, and increased poverty levels.

The only demographic that benefited was the rich. Leading to the vast chasm between the lower classes and the upper class we see today.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland

Real world data continues to show no link between corporate cuts and wage increases



I'm not sure if we are talking apple to oranges here. I don't see how corporate tax cuts would equate to wage increases in a general sense. What determines the wage of a position really has more to do with the worth of that position is to the company, what people are willing to do the job for, and the pool of people available to do the job. I see tax cuts as more of a company growth tool that leads to the need to hire more people. Now if you have 100 workers and you double your business and so you need 100 more workers that doesn't mean all workers now get 3 bucks more per hour for the same work they were doing before, but 100 more people will have a job, and that is a big part of what they want to create with tax cuts. What would drive 3 bucks more an hour would be something a long the lines you want/need higher quality people to work for you, and you will need to pay more for that to happen. As example, the best barista s in the world are not going to work for you at the typical Star Bucks employee rate, so if that is what you want you will need to pay a lot more, or just accept the part time average coffee makers...






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



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: DanteGaland

Real world data continues to show no link between corporate cuts and wage increases



I'm not sure if we are talking apple to oranges here. I don't see how corporate tax cuts would equate to wage increases in a general sense. What determines the wage of a position really has more to do with the worth of that position is to the company, what people are willing to do the job for, and the pool of people available to do the job. I see tax cuts as more of a company growth tool that leads to the need to hire more people. Now if you have 100 workers and you double your business and so you need 100 more workers that doesn't mean all workers now get 3 bucks more per hour for the same work they were doing before, but 100 more people will have a job, and that is a big part of what they want to create with tax cuts. What would drive 3 bucks more an hour would be something a long the lines you want/need higher quality people to work for you, and you will need to pay more for that to happen. As example, the best barista s in the world are not going to work for you at the typical Star Bucks employee rate, so if that is what you want you will need to pay a lot more, or just accept the part time average coffee makers...







Exactly. Tax cuts for corporations will free up more capital for expansion which is what leads to jobs. Wage growth is driven moreso by supply and demand of a given skill set. Obsolete skillsets will not see wage increases simply because of a tax cut.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

So how would the expansion of jobs lead to economic growth with the economy already at near full employment? Shouldn't we instead be looking at the increase of wages? Something you just got done saying will be unaffected by this tax cut.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

Because this tax bill affects liberals just as much as it affects conservatives and it REALLY irks me that conservatives think they can get away with drafting and signing legislation without Democrat support.


The ACA was signed with zero Republican support. My advice to you is pretty much the same asthe left's advice when the ACA became law: deal with it.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

So how would the expansion of jobs lead to economic growth with the economy already at near full employment? Shouldn't we instead be looking at the increase of wages? Something you just got done saying will be unaffected by this tax cut.


I think both sides would admit that it would be useful to see an accurate count on just how many Americans are not counted by the official unemployment figures who actually are looking for work. What the government calls "full employment" is a heavily manipulated figure than disenfranchises a lot of unemployed Americans.




top topics



 
103
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join