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: 9
103
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Will it be as big as Obama's tax cut in 2010? The 'average' family saw a $3,600 tax cut under a bill that cost $860 billion. Under the current GOP plan, the 'average' family is looking at $1,200 savings at a cost of $1.5 trillion.




posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian


Yet we fall for the same talk, the same propaganda from the rightwing, time and time again. We never learn.

its been that way for longer than most people realize. They used the same illogic when we were young; companies will invest more in their employees and the general public if they pay less tax, tariffs, fines, permits, wateverer.

I didn't believe then either.

I gave up caring whether others do, because I knew the corporations, gubment and police authority are all in bed together. They chase around the little guy for tax evasion, prosecute them, then fine and jail them for petty crimes while the 'bigwigs' carry on.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You've got it wrong.

When they can, companies want to grow and make more money for their shareholders, It's about profit. They'll only do that if you make the business environment profitable.

So ...

What are the side effects of making the business environment profitable?

Businesses try to make more profit. They grow. That means they produce more, and that means they need more employees.

When all your businesses are doing this, it necessarily means you have a shortage of labor and less available labor means that companies will need to invest more to get and keep qualified labor as opposed to now when they can simply pay a little to get and keep qualified labor.

When they need to pay a premium for labor, the workers win and can pick and choose their jobs and at better conditions than before and businesses are less stingy because they can afford to be less stingy.

It's not that they invest in their employees out of the goodness of their hearts. It's just a side effect of a generally healthy economy.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Will it be as big as Obama's tax cut in 2010? The 'average' family saw a $3,600 tax cut under a bill that cost $860 billion. Under the current GOP plan, the 'average' family is looking at $1,200 savings at a cost of $1.5 trillion.


The extension of the Bush tax cuts Obama signed, you mean? The one that prevented the average American family's taxes from going up while granting more "tax credits" which ultimately lead us to a point where 45% of earners receive experience net negative taxation, getting more from the government than they pay in taxes? I'm not upper income by any stretch and despite not seeing more than a #% per year salary increase during the Obama years, my base income tax climbed 40% during those 8 years. I went from receiving a 4 figure refund to paying a 4 figure tax bill last year, yet I changed none of my deductions over that time. If you tack on the tripling of my insurance costs since the ACA became law (which is fair seeing as how it can only survive Constitutionally if it is a tax), my tax liability climbed by 300% over prior.

Pass me that damn $1,200 in actual, honest to goodness, tax savings, please.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Having carefully studied economics in college, I can tell you that there is no such thing as "trickle down economics". So your entire premise is based on something that doesn't exist.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I don'tt see any of that happening, I see the opposite. Companies influence (lobby ) to create tax shelters in off shore accounts, More than ever. They move their operations over seas to save on labor costs, then use more lobbying to reduce tariffs so they can escape import tax, More than ever.

They also grease the lobby floor with money to influence regulations at home to get away with environmental pollution, pay less fines, import more immigrant labor on 'temporary' visas, etc.

More than ever, they hoard the increasing profits to themselves and their cronies at the top. Nothing trickles down anymore except toxic runoff, Inflation, Austerity measures and Quantitative Easing.

Then when all is lost and they screw up anyway the gubment bails them out with huge welfare checks, interest free.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Keep your understanding of economics to yourself. The left has no use for any economics not named marxian.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

We currently have the highest combined corporate tax rate in the world.

en.wikipedia.org...

Also, QE did not trickle down.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
If the general populace understood the Tax Code, they would be far less inclined to complain about 'the system'. Most people dont know enough about 'the system' because if they did, they wouldnt be paying taxes like they do.

And most of the rich will never 'pay their fair share', because they will always be the ones with the gold, and he owns the gold, gets to make the rules, never-mind that if a rule slips through that they dont like or agree with, they have the financial means to change their situation.

Anyway, the proper way to look at the Tax Code is a series of incentives, those incentives are directly related to the things the government wants to accomplish. In fact the largest majority of the Tax Code is written to save money, only a mere handful of pages actually speak on collecting taxes, everything else is about how to access the savings, credits, etc.

So for instance, if the government wants to ensure we have housing, they provide tax incentives in order to get folks to invest in housing. So if you want to keep people from accessing those savings, then you quit incentivizing investments in housing. And thats what this rests on. If you over tax, or dont incentivize properly, you halt all foward motion in those sectors. If you shift from one tax incentive to another, then the investors switch where they spend - meaning they just change where their money works for them to still receive the tax benefits.

So in order to make people pay their fair share, you have to cut the incentives, and when you cut the incentives, you stop forward motion in that sector. Which isnt something that anyone wants.

HOWEVER

If you know this is the game being played, you too can easily adjust your life and your situation to where you mimic what the rich are doing. There is a reason Donald Trump and Mitt Romney pay little in effective taxes, its because they see the game for what it is and maximize their potential in that game. I have now done the same thing, not to their level, but I dont want the government having ANY of my money, I dont agree on how it gets spent, and I would rather spend it as I see fit, and I now have that opportunity all by changing my situation and how I looked at things.

I would encourage everyone to look into Tom Wheelwright, as he is a high level CPA that knows what you need to do in order to legally lower your taxes and put yourself in a better position.

Robert Kiyosaki is another one who pays very little in tax.

There are many, many strategies to mitigate your tax burden if thats what you so desire.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: intrptr

We currently have the highest combined corporate tax rate in the world.

en.wikipedia.org...

Also, QE did not trickle down.


The Gloablists are proud I'm sure.

QE is increasing the money supply. Printing more money, increasing circulation, increases inflation.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, that is the purpose of QE, but as the fed learned, the money didn't make it's way into actual circulation. That's why they never hit their targeted inflation rate and didn't see a significant drop in inflation when they stopped QE infinity.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs


What I am saying is that the middle class is being screwed royally and Trump is the first to try to fix it since Reagan.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

The middle class got screwed under Reagan. Despite the success the Republicans like to claim under Reaganomics, the middle class saw a negligible increase on income. At the same time the rich saw a massive growth in wealth. Leading to the massive gap in wealth we have today.

Judging by history the only thing the middle class have coming their way is a recession in 10 years.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

The funny part is, reagan/bush/clinton/bush/obama/trump have had nothing to do with the lack of increase in income. That's on feminists. I'm not saying women should stay home in the kitchen and raise babies. I'm saying economically speaking those raises got eaten up by two income households. The labor force increased massively since the 80's because women went to work. As we all know from the most basic level of economics, when increase the supply of something (in this case laborer's) the price goes down. But wages are inelastic so rather than correcting down, they plateau'd while demand caught up to the supply.

Now that women are starting to decide the work place really isn't all it was cracked up to be, expect wages to start increasing. Women in the work force has hit or is very near full saturation and as such, raises in income are going to come back.

ETA: what really is going to suck is that the generation that didn't get raises is going to have less money for retirement and inflation is going to make them very poor in retirement.
edit on 7-11-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
It's better for $4 Trillion to be brought back to America, than left in off-shore accounts to avoid taxes.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: intrptr

You've got it wrong.

When they can, companies want to grow and make more money for their shareholders, It's about profit. They'll only do that if you make the business environment profitable.

So ...

What are the side effects of making the business environment profitable?

Businesses try to make more profit. They grow. That means they produce more, and that means they need more employees.

When all your businesses are doing this, it necessarily means you have a shortage of labor and less available labor means that companies will need to invest more to get and keep qualified labor as opposed to now when they can simply pay a little to get and keep qualified labor.

When they need to pay a premium for labor, the workers win and can pick and choose their jobs and at better conditions than before and businesses are less stingy because they can afford to be less stingy.

It's not that they invest in their employees out of the goodness of their hearts. It's just a side effect of a generally healthy economy.






If what you are saying here is true can you please explain how the bank is shedding jobs while enjoying massively increased profits, seems to me the only trickling down is to shareholders.


NAB has flagged the loss of 6,000 jobs as the impact of new technology and digital transactions cuts a swathe through traditional banking jobs.


The job losses over three years were announced as the bank revealed a full year net profit of $5.3 billion

source



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, that is the purpose of QE, but as the fed learned, the money didn't make it's way into actual circulation. That's why they never hit their targeted inflation rate and didn't see a significant drop in inflation when they stopped QE infinity.


QE is another complex term that just means inflating the money supply, printing more money. They have to inflate prices, because fiat currency is off the gold standard, currency is not backed by hard assets.

More money chasing the same goods and services raises cost, i.e., inflation. They try to disguise inflation in other ways too like "Shrinkflation", less product for the same price. They also enact Austerity measures like less pensions, early retirement, lay offs, lower wages, benefits, blah blah, just like Europe.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


If what you are saying here is true can you please explain how the bank is shedding jobs while enjoying massively increased profits, seems to me the only trickling down is to shareholders.

ATMs replace tellers. Tellers in branches for 'friendly service' aren't really necessary.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


If what you are saying here is true can you please explain how the bank is shedding jobs while enjoying massively increased profits, seems to me the only trickling down is to shareholders.

ATMs replace tellers. Tellers in branches for 'friendly service' aren't really necessary.





I get that, years ago the banks sold to us using ATM's would increase profits to the banks and then would pass on savings to customers, well funnily enough the banks made more money and kept charging customers more money for their services, all the while cutting staff and lower levels of customer service.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


If what you are saying here is true can you please explain how the bank is shedding jobs while enjoying massively increased profits, seems to me the only trickling down is to shareholders.

ATMs replace tellers. Tellers in branches for 'friendly service' aren't really necessary.

I get that, years ago the banks sold to us using ATM's would increase profits to the banks and then would pass on savings to customers, well funnily enough the banks made more money and kept charging customers more money for their services, all the while cutting staff and lower levels of customer service.

Exactly.

Nowadays 'Maximizing Profits" requires they trim every cost no matter how small, because they are playing a losing game they have to make up the loss somehow.

I understand they are actually charging interest to keep your money at some banks now.

How greedy is that?



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and knocked off an extra 2% from payroll taxes. On top of that were the ARRA rebates that equated to $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples. That's just cold, hard cash that was given out. That still only cost $790 billion even with all the additional tax rebates in the law (college tuition, green energy, social security, etc.)

Even the Bush rebates of 2008 gave up to $1200 to married couples for a mere $96 billion.

We're supposed to believe that the current tax plan is supposed to be beneficial by giving the 'average' family less money and costing us more debt through expanding the deficit? Mind you, the 'average' family they keep touting is a family of 4. If you are a couple or a family of three you'll see less or, in fact, your taxes will go up. All of that 'savings' is through an increase in child tax credit being raised. It raises the 'average' savings number, but for most everyone this bill will do nothing but cost money.



new topics

top topics



 
103
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join