a reply to: murphy22
All I'm saying is government, especially the US. Government has no business controlling or "trickling" anything. Under the US. Constitution
they're not a for "profit" government or organization.
The point I was trying to make, though, is that "trickle down" does not refer to the "trickling" coming from the government. The trickle comes from
business; all the government can do is stop it with high taxation.
In one sense, the government does directly "trickle down," in the area of government employees... but I don't think that's what you are talking
Trickle down, is a "catch phrase".
Of course it is! Absolutely! It was coined by Reagan to try and describe how decreasing taxes on business would lead to more money for workers.
I really don't agree with your claim that it is used by socialists, though. Quite the opposite. A government cannot exist without taxation, because a
government has certain functions that require labor and supplies to accomplish. The military, for instance, needs soldiers... and while those soldiers
could be attained without money through required service, the things the soldiers require cannot. I'm talking about food, shelter, and equipment.
Those have to be provided somehow.
So the question becomes not whether taxes should exist, but at what level is taxation acceptable. All corporate taxation, even that which is
legitimate, is a drain on business and therefore a brake on the economy. Push that brake too hard and the "trickle down" slows, which also slows the
"trickle up" which further slows the "trickle down" which further... you get the idea. All individual taxation, even that which is legitimate, is a
drain on the individual and therefore slows the "trickle up" (aka, purchasing goods and services)... which starts the exact same cycle. The trick is
to only tax as much as necessary.
Which speaks to your concern over the national debt. In that area, you are preaching to the choir as well. It is corruption at the highest levels of
government that has caused this, and only removing the corruption can slow our descent into bankruptcy.
i will also argue with the personal exemption and progressive tax rates; in a capitalist economy, they may smack of socialism, but they also serve to
combat the excesses that pure capitalism can create. Those with more find it easier to make more, while those with less find it harder... at the
extreme end are those who simply cannot survive well enough to better themselves. It makes sense to me that the poorest pay no taxes, because the
first order of government is to protect its people, and that includes from itself. It also makes sense that the wealthy pay more in tax, since that
makes the taxation rate more accurately reflect the actual difficulty in earning the income. My only complaint about the tax rates concerns the range
that is used, not the fact it is non-linear.
Time is, of course, the ultimate currency; I agree with you and that is my defense for the progressive taxation. It more closely represents taxation
on time instead of simply dollars (which are, truly, a man-made substitute for time). It is that use of time that separates the wealthy from the poor
quite often. Whereas one person will see a need for more money and work harder and smarter to increase their income, another person will see the exact
same need and turn to complaints which serve no purpose than to waste their own ultimate resource of time. That's just human nature, and that human
nature is what today's socialists seek to avoid consequences for. That's why socialism fails when applied in too large doses to an economy; no one is
going to work harder to support someone they don't even know, and that is the central requirement of socialist policies. I have a feeling we also
agree on this.
Men, governments should be held accountable for their words. Or their misuse of them.
I agree... but so should the public bear some responsibility for their ability, or even their desire, to accept those words at face value. The phrase
"trickle down" was not adopted to 'fool' anyone IMO... it was adopted to try and deliver a meaning to a public unable to comprehend the full truth of
the proposals. We see this right here in this thread... people still unclear how the process works even after what now? Almost 40 years since the term