Republicans still going on about trickle down economics

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

What has the trickle down tax cuts done for us? Nothing really, aside from benefitting the wealthy and our jobs steadily being shifted off overseas.

Well, we have to ask ourselves who spends money more productively - the government or private investors?

Then we must ask ourselves what constitutes the creation of wealth. Is the government capable of creating new wealth?

What makes society richer as a whole?

What differentiates America from Zimbabwe?

If Zimbabwe duplicated every single US law, program, and bureaucracy - would their people be able to live at our same standard of living over night?

edit on 12-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

For your first question - poor hungry people spend their money in the most productive manner (if there is such a
litmus test) due to spending a large portion if not all funds, which end up in other peoples play

I think a well educated populace is the best investment a society can boost -

What differentiates what you want and Somalia?

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Since the 1980's we have cut the corporate tax rate from 70% to 35%, we have spent more than $2 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy since that period and the result? Our debt has dramatically increased since then, Our jobs have been shipped overseas, our GDP growth has not been as high as it was before the 80's. Yet your still insisting?

Our debt is a problem of government spending. Period. It is not the fault of businesses. If you have less revenue, you have less to spend. This concept is lost when you have control of the printing press and idiots like Pelosi - who think printing gobs of money stimulates the economy and creates jobs.

Jobs are going overseas because it doesn't make sense to pay someone $7.25/hour to make spoons. America is beyond such menial industrial tasks. America's industry is for high-quality, high-complexity production and assembly that other international businesses have difficulty competing against. The trick is to do it in such a way that your line workers are working at an entry level and you don't have to have assembly lines manned by rocket scientists (with all the pay they demand).

Increasing minimum wage has forced a lot of our labor jobs overseas - it's not only work that is hard for our industry to compete in; but when minimum wage is an entire magnitude above what other nations pay - we can no longer stand to make those items. You don't want to pay $200 for a pair of jeans. You wouldn't pay $200 for a pair of jeans just because it has "Made in America" stamped on it and is of, more or less, the same quality as a $30 pair made in Taiwan. You can only get so much quality in textiles - for your every-day clothing and average consumer demand - the market we have simply couldn't bear domestic production of most of our stuff.

This also addresses your GDP-growth issue. GDP is going to be influenced by more than taxation. America's industry has been in a bit of a crisis these past thirty years. Manufacturing jobs are being squeezed out by foreign markets, high overhead, and arbitrary government regulations. Many of your small and medium-sized manufacturing industry has simply evaporated - there are under a hundred aluminum diecasting companies left in America, and the number is getting smaller every year.

Those that are left are seeing some favorable trends - a lot of places are searching out domestic suppliers because of quality issues with China and the realization that a war could paralyze their entire industry. But the market is high-attrition, still. But it still doesn't change the fact that it's a market that is going to have to evolve and progress beyond other nations to be successful.

America isn't going to survive as a first-world nation if we insist on sticking to industry that is becoming second-world.

Bosses? This example is not representitive of the entire top 5% and those of the business owners in this country.

Actually, it is. Most who fall in that bracket are small-business owners who invest their own money into the profitability of the business. Most businesses in the U.S. are small businesses - and provide the vast majority of the jobs in this nation.

There are many businesses shifting jobs overseas, many businesses playing around with economy, we saw what the banks did over the last few years.

Fractional Reserve Banking is a government-endorsed practice. Jobs going overseas is only natural - you aren't going to pay $20 for a spoon or $2,500 for a stereo that amounts to a panasonic you could buy at walmart for $400. Those jobs are going to go overseas and be replaced by jobs making more advanced components, or assembling the parts made overseas. We got rich in the 1700s by being a labor market - we could build ships like no other country due to our massive timber sources (by comparison to Europe). We were still doing this in the 1800s, being mostly agricultural suppliers. With the industrial revolution, we became first-world and were producing things that few other industries could around the world. This continued up into and through the 70s.

Now, our industry has to change with the changing times of the world, or we will have to step back and accept being second-world, again.

As for the banks - most of the problem with them has been caused by practices endorsed by federal legislation. Remove things like the FHA insured loans or "equal lending" mandates, and you will see the banks shape up in a hurry.

You are essentially arguing that all businesses and business owners are in our best interests which is absolutely not true.

This is, of course, not necessarily true. However - even if an industry employs people for its own selfish reasons - the end result is economic stimulation. It is the exception when a business presence is actually not desired, regardless of its reason for existing.

We should reward businesses for employing americans, for putting money back into the economy, we should not be rewarding every single wealthy person in this country because we assume all of them are putting back into this economy.

This is selective taxation and not permitted under the Constitution. Of course - most of our taxes are unconstitutional - so, whatever.

The problem with your argument is that everyone who is wealthy contributes to our economy. Even people who are "filthy rich" and "hoard" their money in a bank account contribute to economic development. Their money being in a bank account allows banks to loan money at lower interest rates to individuals and businesses. They, effectively, provide a service.

Chances are that, even if they choose to spend a lot of their money over-seas, a substantial portion of that returns to our country through demand for higher-quality goods and equipment that we produce and they require to advance their own country.

I am also finding it humorous how you say we "spend" on tax cuts. Does the government spend 80% of my revenue as a tax cut? That's an interesting perspective.

Originally posted by Aim64C
This concept is lost when you have control of the printing press and idiots like Pelosi - who think printing gobs of money stimulates the economy and creates jobs.

A very well stated post, overall, and that statement highlights a huge problem. However, I fault both parties for spending like drunken sailors.

Jobs are going overseas because it doesn't make sense to pay someone $7.25/hour to make spoons. America is beyond such menial industrial tasks.

This is true, unfortunately. But, it doesn't have to be. Entitlement spending is now at 59% of the Federal budget and 20% of GDP. There are payments and other benefits to people not working and we are subsidizing industry. Why not cut some of that spending by requiring the subsidies be paid as wages to those able-bodied welfare recipients?

Our industry is hurting for many reasons, not the least of which are the uncertainties of increasing regulation, health care mandates and tax cut expiration.

The problem with your argument is that everyone who is wealthy contributes to our economy. Even people who are "filthy rich" and "hoard" their money in a bank account contribute to economic development. Their money being in a bank account allows banks to loan money at lower interest rates to individuals and businesses. They, effectively, provide a service.

A most excellent observation. Without banks having cash to loan, everything comes to a halt. Ranchers don't buy cattle, farmers don't buy fertilizer, inventory isn't replaced and payrolls aren't made. And, whose money is loaned? Not those who are being pitted against the "evil rich".

Once again, great post Aim!

And I suppose by taxing the wealthy business owners, they won't be forced to layoff their employees?
I suppose trickle up poverty would be a better solution?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Well, we have to ask ourselves who spends money more productively - the government or private investors?

I was not under the impression all private investors were business owners.

I believe that most private investors are out there for their own self interests, and why shouldn't they? You give them tax cuts and you'd assume they'll automatically invest this into creating jobs in this country? We saw the results of that for the last 30 years. Private investors are in the business of looking after themselves, and those tax cuts are theirs, they have no obligation once they recieve it.

Private investors do what they do best, they gamble. Every once in a while they hit the jackpot enough to put towards a company and create jobs, but most of the time that gamble does not pay off, not to the country atleast. Wealthy Investors like to either save most of the money they have or spend it in the most efficient way possible, by investing in developing and cheap foreign countries. Oh yes, and they'd buy the luxuries in this country, not that it was any different before any tax cut.

I fail to see what the tax cuts in the 80's to this day did for this country? What? I've seen an increasing gap between the rich and poor in this country, I've seen a loss of jobs to foreign countries. How the hell can you continue to make excuses for trickle down economics? Explain. I want actual examples, not "theories". I heard the theories during the 80's when Reagan made his case. I have not see the results expected, just the opposite.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Our debt is a problem of government spending. Period. It is not the fault of businesses.

This is not just about debt. This is about the increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor, this is about the increasing loss of jobs overseas. I fail to see what trickle down economics did for this country again? Can you name something positive?

Jobs are going overseas because it doesn't make sense to pay someone $7.25/hour to make spoons.

Exactly, it doesnt. So why the hell do we continue giving the bulk of these tax cuts to businesses and individuals who continue to shift these jobs overseas? Please explain.

Increasing minimum wage has forced a lot of our labor jobs overseas

How significantly has minimum wage increased over the years? No that much by my accounts. Are you suggesting we not have a minimum wage at all to compete with the likes of India? Or is it tough luck. If it's "tough luck" then I fail to see how you expect people to agree with you on trickle down economics? We cut taxes mostly for the wealthy, they shift jobs and labour overseas, and thats the way it outta be? Shoot.

Fractional Reserve Banking is a government-endorsed practice.

"Private investors" ace. Nobody is forcing them to speculate, nobody is forcing them to gamble. They make their own choices, they spend their tax cuts accordingly. "Government endorsed" is a weak excuse for the actions of speculators and investors, unless you are to insist that the government is forcing them to do so. Did the government tell all those investors what to do over the last 30 years? I don't think so.

even if an industry employs people for its own selfish reasons - the end result is economic stimulation.

Yep, which lasts for a very brief period before it all goes down again, whether you keep the tax cuts in place or not. We saw this in the 80's when the highs were very brief then low again, we saw this in the 90's. Money is gambled away, money is invested toward foreign markets. Little trickles down to the little guy for the future. Much like a herion or meth addict you know? That is what this system is to me.

This is selective taxation and not permitted under the Constitution.

Yet we provide and have been providing incentives in this country for years. While taxes only really came into place in the 19th century, incentives to maintain and promote growth in this country have been around since the 18th century. We can talk about favourability in this country, it's inevitable, especially when promoting growth.

The problem with your argument is that everyone who is wealthy contributes to our economy.

A man who buys a brand new 2011 Mustang from a Ford dealer after successfully investing in a Thailand factory (which took over 40 american jobs) is not something I see as "contribution" to this country. But yes, he did contribute back into this country technically, I get you.

I am also finding it humorous how you say we "spend" on tax cuts. Does the government spend 80% of my revenue as a tax cut? That's an interesting perspective.

If cutting taxes does not cost then cutting taxes out period should not cost by logic, now if you can explain to me a country without taxes, I'm all ears. Sounds rather wonderful.

reply to post by camaro68ss


This very early argument of yours is regarding corporate tax, I'm pretty sure there's a difference between corporate and individual tax.

When I, or most other 'liberals' say, "Tax those making more than $250,000 a year." I'm not saying, "We need to tax business' whose profit is greater than $250,000 a year."

There seems to be a huge difference in arguments on this topic, your numbers even show that someone who owns a small business whose profit is just over a quarter of a million has an income far less than that. I'm not saying they or their business needs to contribute more than they already do, I'm saying individuals making as much as a small business need to contribute more.

Does this specification change your understanding of the argument at all?

reply to post by Southern Guardian

This is not just about debt. This is about the increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor, this is about the increasing loss of jobs overseas. I fail to see what trickle down economics did for this country again? Can you name something positive?

Trickle-down economics is the free market. It's kind of what made this country to begin with. Granted - we had a -very- free market to begin with, and most of our early nation was founded on slaves from Europe and orphanages. You don't hear about it in history books - racial issues are far too powerful of a political tool for extortion for any truths to be told about slavery.

There are reasonable restrictions to be placed on the market, especially in areas where the market is naturally very restricted and prone to issues of indentured servitude, price fixing, etc.

Exactly, it doesnt. So why the hell do we continue giving the bulk of these tax cuts to businesses and individuals who continue to shift these jobs overseas? Please explain.

Most of the individuals affected by these tax cuts are small business owners - not corporate giants.

In either case - the reason you should want these jobs to go overseas is that a spoon made here would cost several times more than a spoon made in Taiwan, India, China, etc. What you do is send the spoon-making business overseas. Then, the factory that used to make spoons here converts (or is taken over) by a factory that makes spoon-making-machine parts - and other more advanced and specialized solutions.

We end up bringing in about the same GDP and the cost of living goes down. The other nation sees an improvement in their own economy and returns that economic growth in the form of purchases of higher-tech goods and services that we provide.

It's called the "global economy" and a bit of history. You should try looking into them before shooting your mouth off.

How significantly has minimum wage increased over the years? No that much by my accounts.

Five years ago, I got paid $5.25 minimum wage. Today, I get paid $7.25 minimum wage. That shift took place with one policy change (IE - from one tax year to another). That's a 38% increase.

Are you suggesting we not have a minimum wage at all to compete with the likes of India?

I am merely stating a fact. Minimum wage is one of the reasons we cannot compete with countries that have no minimum wage. Raising minimum wage does two things - increases the cost of local labor, goods, and services and increases the disparity between local and over-seas operation.

In other words, if it costs you $50 to make a tire in the U.S, and $35 to make one in India - you may still choose to keep factories in the U.S. because of shipping costs and the risks of overseas providers. However, let's say labor accounts for about half of your operating costs, and now you are looking at a 38% hike on minimum wage - that's going to bump production costs up to roughly $60/tire in the U.S.

That's a substantial increase in operational overhead, and when your competitor decides to shift overseas and provide tires at a substantially lower price than you - you've not got much choice but to shift overseas, or hope you can convince people to buy American, even though the quality is the same and your tire costs a fair amount more.

Or is it tough luck. If it's "tough luck" then I fail to see how you expect people to agree with you on trickle down economics?

There's nothing to agree or disagree upon. I'm simply attempting to educate you on how economics works.

We cut taxes mostly for the wealthy, they shift jobs and labour overseas, and thats the way it outta be? Shoot.

They shift jobs overseas and start up new ones here that better reflect our industrial capability and specialty. We -cannot- compete with China when it comes to second-world products (our industrial staple since the 1900s). While these used to reflect the leading edge of industrial prowess - this is no longer the case. We have to change the face of our industry, and to do that - some of our jobs are going to have to go overseas and new ones be created here in the U.S.

This is complicated by the housing market collapse we are only beginning to recover from and the nightmare of starting up and operating a business in the U.S.

"Private investors" ace. Nobody is forcing them to speculate, nobody is forcing them to gamble. They make their own choices, they spend their tax cuts accordingly. "Government endorsed" is a weak excuse for the actions of speculators and investors, unless you are to insist that the government is forcing them to do so. Did the government tell all those investors what to do over the last 30 years? I don't think so.

You've obviously no clue what I'm talking about.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.lewrockwell.com...

Yep, which lasts for a very brief period before it all goes down again, whether you keep the tax cuts in place or not. We saw this in the 80's when the highs were very brief then low again, we saw this in the 90's. Money is gambled away, money is invested toward foreign markets. Little trickles down to the little guy for the future. Much like a herion or meth addict you know? That is what this system is to me.

Disrespectfully, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Tax cuts don't work by giving you or me more money per se. They work by reducing operational overhead, increasing personal and corporate capital retention. The reduced overhead gives you more purchasing power and corporations more to expand and create jobs.

Higher taxes increase the cost to maintain a standard of living. While minimum wage may be raised in an attempt to compensate, you are still unable to earn enough to purchase more than what you would have prior to tax increases and minimum wage increases. IE - Bread in the 40s cost something like a nickel. Today it can cost anywhere from a dollar to two dollars, depending upon the brand and type. You may earn $200 per week, when your grandfather only earned $20 - but you spend more of your income on that loaf of bread.

Trickle-down economics results in lower prices, higher capital retention at the personal level (IE - you take home more money) and thereby increases your purchasing power and standard of living, even though you earn the same amount.

This is a horribly simplified example - and no single economic factor is going to 'control' the flow of the economy. However - the general strategy for resolving economic recession is to reduce spending, decrease taxes. The key is to reduce spending from a government perspective - otherwise it does little good to reduce taxes.

A man who buys a brand new 2011 Mustang from a Ford dealer after successfully investing in a Thailand factory (which took over 40 american jobs) is not something I see as "contribution" to this country. But yes, he did contribute back into this country technically, I get you.

This is only part of the picture. That factory in Thailand can sell the product back to America at a greatly reduced price. Your computer - you can afford it because it was made, mostly, overseas. Only the "elite" could afford it were it made in the U.S.

Because Thailand now has this income as part of the U.S. - their economy begins to demand first-world goods and products (made here in the U.S.) Those 40 jobs 'lost' to Thailand return in jobs making the things Thailand begins to demand as their economy expands.

Wealth is not a fixed or effectively quantifiable value. It is productivity and the exchange of what one produces. It can be created out of 'thin air.' It is also nothing that can be taken and distributed.

If cutting taxes does not cost then cutting taxes out period should not cost by logic, now if you can explain to me a country without taxes, I'm all ears. Sounds rather wonderful.

You've apparently got a reading comprehension problem.

Your standpoint is that a government spends when it cuts taxes.

By this logic, a government is spending money to only tax me at a 20% rate (for example) - they are spending, on me, the equivalent of 80% of my income.

I go into a business - I give that business $6 for a meal. The next day, they have reduced the price to $5, and I give them $5 for that same meal. Has that business spent a dollar on me? Or did they really spend $15 on me, since I came in with a $20 bill?

When a government lowers taxes, it simply demands less of a citizen's income. It doesn't spend any more, or any less.

In many cases, however, reducing taxes, especially when in the extreme ranges, actually increases revenue.

For example - a change from a 30% tax rate to a 28% tax rate. Because businesses and individuals are only used to working with 70% of their income, a change in taxes of 2% results in a 2.8% increase in their earnings that can be spent.

That is a bit of a number manipulation, but when people do something like invest with that money, banks can lend out somewhat more than what was invested (this is fractional reserve banking - and while the extremes permitted under our government come with more risks than benefits - the principle is a staple of banking dynamics). Banks can loan out up to 90% of what is invested (the more likely that money is to stay, the more of it they can lend - this is why long-term CDs get high interest rates - the money is bound by contracts and penalties to stay there for a given length of time) - this leads to 2.8% increases in capital earnings turning into a roughly 5% increase in economic activity.

Businesses can also decide to move into your region to take advantage of these tax breaks - which bring jobs and additional revenue to your district (though this is relocating it from some other region - so it's not exactly 'creating' economic activity - but it is new to your area).

This is also known as "freakinomics."

You're likely not to appreciate the reference - but take out almost any Sim-City game. While the economies of these games are quite simple and don't quite experience the cyclical nature of our own, or deal with concepts like inflation or market bubbles - it does give you a good idea of how taxes work. High taxes and spending result in derelict businesses strewn across your city, and actually will decrease revenue. Lowering taxes can arrest this behavior and actually increase revenue. In general - the best way to increase revenue is to make an inviting climate for businesses and higher wealth residences. Yes, to do this - you do have to spend some. The trick is always to balance spending with taxation - you don't really have the options of privatized learning centers and healthcare - so you end up footing the bill for all of that stuff - but you have to prioritize your spending. When things look bad - the first thing you do is cut back on spending. When you notice businesses jumping ship and leaving - you have to reduce taxes.

An entire simulation of any real-world economy is beyond the scope of any computer simulation of home interest. Only banks and investment firms would bother with developing a model and system for simulating different scenarios - and would do it with a supercomputer. But the basic principles still stand. You don't increase taxes and spending when you are in the middle of or recovering from a recession. On anyone.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Most of the individuals affected by these tax cuts are small business owners - not corporate giants.

Fundamentally incorrect in that the tax cuts were for individuals, not business'. The taxes, if let expire, would raise on individuals making more than $250,000/year. Not business' that make that.

If a small business owner is making more than $250,000/year then they're in the top 2% of earners in the nation. If the argument is that small business is what drives America and only small business owners make more than $250,000 is the argument, that argument is wrong. A small business that makes $250,000 a year cannot have an owner making more than $250,000 a year and still provide more than one job. Two percent simply cannot drive the other ninety-eight percent of the nation. If it does, this country needs a communist revolution more than anyone can comprehend.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

and why are they shipping jobs overseas????? because taxes are to high here. hate to brake it to ya

edit on 9-12-2010 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

Corporations exist to give profits to share holders. They are NOT employment agencies.

If you can triple dividends to share holders by sending manufacturing overseas.......American Laborers get screwed over.

We've been getting ROBBED. These same Corporations took risk sending everything overseas and when they did...and Americans no longer could afford their junk they sell....CORPORATIONS GET A GOVERNMENT BAIL OUT!

American Citizens have been getting robbed, we've lost our entire National Wealth. The majority of America won't realize it until it's too late...when there won't even be welfare in 2014.

These tax cuts do absolutely nothing to promote employment growth. The reality of these cuts is timely boat payments, and summer home restoration for the wealthy. Believing in the theory of Trickle Down Economics is even sillier than believing that Obama is a Communist Muslim; or that Sarah Palin is intelligent.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

Murray Rothbard, Making Economic Sense (1995)

reply to post by Southern Guardian


History has proven that Trickle Down Economics does not work. It never has...Anyone realize that these "Bush era tax-cuts" have been in effect before and during the entire "Great Reccession" we are trying to escape from right now? How did they help?

Cuz as I see it...not only did the wealthiest 2% get tax breaks...but when Americans ran out of money to give them, they asked the Gov. to step in and take our money directly and give it to them...in the form of BILLIONS in bailouts without conditions.

And now they are offended by not getting tax breaks???

Trickle down economics has been known to be a fraud for over a hundred years...

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory."

'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'" Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896. During this period, in his Cross of Gold speech, Democrat William Jennings Bryan said:

"There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests up on them."

en.wikipedia.org...

Bottom line...a prosperous middle class...the consumers consuming...will be better for the wealthiest 2% in the long run. They will get a smaller percentage of a much greater money flow.

What is occuring now is just hoarding and panic amongst the wealthy. The want all the money they can get and they will invest it in reliable foriegn interests like China and Middle East Energy conglomerates. The two hottest investment markets for wealthy Americans right now.

They need to suck it up and invest in the country that gave them wealth, both through traditional means and taxpayer bailouts.

They won't do that unless forced. We can't rely on thier sense of honor, duty or patriotism.

We were forced to give them Billions of our money when they "needed" it. Letting a tax break expire to return the slightest trickle of that wealth back to the middle class amidst a financial crisis is not too much to ask for.

And believe it or not...A financially solvent middle class is good for the wealthiest 2% as well as everyone else.

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by Aim64C
Most of the individuals affected by these tax cuts are small business owners - not corporate giants.

Fundamentally incorrect in that the tax cuts were for individuals, not business'. The taxes, if let expire, would raise on individuals making more than $250,000/year. Not business' that make that.

Fundamentally it is correct only if said business is still structured under a sole-proprietorship or partnership. Then their business income is considered personal income and will be taxed. But at the same time, you can report losses as well.

Sole Proprietorship

One of the advantages of a sole proprietorship is its simplicity. You do not separate taxes for your business, you simply report all of your business income and losses on your personal income tax return.

So if I am running a business and my income goes above $200K/year I get nailed at the higher tax bracket. Which means less money to reinvest into my business. Less money to hire new people. Less money to give a Christmas bonus. Less money to purchase new inventory. Less money to expand. Less money to give my workers a raise.

This is all on top of the 'normal' business expenditures I have to comply with. Unemployment insurance, matching SSI and Medicare, minimum wage laws (which is a whole other topic) - these are just for the employee....

Pretty decent opinion piece on the make up of small business in America. These are the folks that the Politicians want to nail either unintended or willfully. Class warfare....

I just have two simple questions.

1. If trickle down economics is good for the economy, when does it stop producing detrimental effects and start producing positive results? I just looked at my watch and its been about 30 years now so...any timetable on that from the proponents?

2. If Bush's tax cuts were good for the economy......

same question, 2 less decades.

Ah what the heck, one more.

How many business owners in this thread have created or added jobs because of a surplus of non-revenue funding? Anyone?

The GOP wants to keep tax cuts for the rich and the Dems want to eliminate them. Finally some Dems grow a spine and block a deal demanded by the GOP. The Dems have like the rest of the nation realized long ago that "Trickled Down Economics" clearly does not work and has not worked for going on 30 yrs. We've seen the end result in that plan, falling economy, rising unemployment, consistant outsourcing of ourjobs, deletion of American ideals in business. They know its a scam and are being called out like the swine that they are.These brave Dems are the mice running around at the feet of the elephant, The elephant is so scared he don't know what to do or think.

reply to post by WTFover



Tax revenue increased because it was bound to do so regardless. Plus the OP said it had a short term benefit with a long term travesty that we are currently in.

reply to post by links234

Fundamentally incorrect in that the tax cuts were for individuals, not business'. The taxes, if let expire, would raise on individuals making more than $250,000/year. Not business' that make that.

You should look into what is called a "sole proprietorship." And "Privately held stock." The guy that owns the hobby-shop down the road may or may not make more than $250K per year - I don't know. But much of his income does end up being re-invested into his business, whether he has only one extra employee or ten.

Likewise - the family that privately holds the stock to its company and has more than 150 employees likely each make above $250K per year. Again - a lot of that ends up being re-invested into the business - often for business trips to secure new customers and/or expansion. A business trip to another country can easily run $5K, and it wouldn't be uncommon to have one or two per quarter for an active business. That's as much as $40K per year - and after taxes take out more than 50% of their income.

Are they the only ones who earn more than that per year? No. However, from my perspective, anyone who earns more than $50K per year is quite wealthy, indeed. Everyone earning more than $50K should have their taxes adjusted so that they are only allowed to keep about $50K. What do you say?

This arbitrary limit to what one can personally earn is ridiculous and a perfect example of institutionalized jealousy.

reply to post by maybereal11

History has proven that Trickle Down Economics does not work. It never has...Anyone realize that these "Bush era tax-cuts" have been in effect before and during the entire "Great Reccession" we are trying to escape from right now? How did they help?

The question should be "How did they hurt?"

Cuz as I see it...not only did the wealthiest 2% get tax breaks...but when Americans ran out of money to give them, they asked the Gov. to step in and take our money directly and give it to them...in the form of BILLIONS in bailouts without conditions.

This is what we call being blinded by both jealousy and complete incompetence on your behalf.

This all started under government programs. You have the centralized bank (a government creation) allowing for huge manipulations of the fractional reserve banking process - a practice that would -never- run nearly as rampant in a free banking system. Then you also have things like the FDIC and FHA that insure bank loans and securities.

In other words - it says that, should anything go wrong - the government has your back. The bailouts were not an option, the government was contractually bound to them since the 30s and, more recently, the 70s with the creation of the FHA and FHA-insured loans.

The whole idea of "protecting the people" and "equal housing" lead to the problems we see today.

Now you want to make them -bigger- by increasing taxes on the wealthy so that you can have more luxury in your life. Honestly - you need to curb your stupidity before those of us with sense decide we need to do what is necessary to ensure our own survival.

And now they are offended by not getting tax breaks???

It could be due to the simple fact that they pay over half of their earnings in taxes, while you get to sit there, paying less than 20%, and demand they pay more.

In all honesty, since that money is going to you, in the form of benefits - you are, ethically, not allowed to make the decision on what taxes should be. It amounts to: "I want more money, rather than go to school, get a better job, or otherwise improve my situation, me and my other under-employed buddies can vote ourselves housing, healthcare, and food at your expense. Not like you -need- that much money, right?"

We go on and on about the corruption and problems with lobbyists and representatives that stand to gain if certain measures pass.... look at yourself. How corrupt is it for the masses to be allowed to vote on whether or not 2% of the population should pay them more money?

Trickle down economics has been known to be a fraud for over a hundred years...

The whole principle of voting on income-graded taxes is the largest fraud of all.

Bottom line...a prosperous middle class...the consumers consuming...will be better for the wealthiest 2% in the long run. They will get a smaller percentage of a much greater money flow.

Tell me. What do the middle class do?

I know a number of people who make a living going to install TVs, media systems, furniture, etc for those "filthy wealthy." The income of the wealthy ends up being passed on to the middle class, making and doing things that the wealthy pay for.

What is occuring now is just hoarding and panic amongst the wealthy. The want all the money they can get and they will invest it in reliable foriegn interests like China and Middle East Energy conglomerates. The two hottest investment markets for wealthy Americans right now.

Actually, the hottest investment market is the renewable energy companies in America. The uneducated masses have mandated that corporations get a certain portion of their energy from "renewable" sources and voted subsidies to energy companies. It's a market the government will not allow to fail.

They need to suck it up and invest in the country that gave them wealth, both through traditional means and taxpayer bailouts.

They need to pay you for existing. I appreciate your honesty. Perhaps you should use your superior reasoning skills to come up with a good or service to exchange with these wealthy people to smooth the process over.

They won't do that unless forced. We can't rely on thier sense of honor, duty or patriotism.

So, if they don't do what you want, make them do it by force? Sounds an awful lot like a police state, to me. Rather than Jews being persecuted, we persecute the wealthy.

This is what separates the smart from the stupid. Smart people, such as myself, see a concentration of wealth as an opportunity. They have money to spend, right? I have hands, a brain, and a whole world beneath my feet. Perhaps I should put what I have at my disposal to use, to create something that these people with money would be willing to spend it on.

They make money for some reason, correct? You don't go out and collect a warehouse full of acorns, because it would serve little purpose to you to do so. These people wouldn't collect money if it wasn't for some purpose or another. My hunch is that they plan to have it around to spend when they see something they want, or come across an idea they think is a good one.

Taxes are merely a way for the worthless to sustain their unjustified existence.

We were forced to give them Billions of our money when they "needed" it. Letting a tax break expire to return the slightest trickle of that wealth back to the middle class amidst a financial crisis is not too much to ask for.

This is quite meaningless. Your money doesn't constitute revenue:

www.taxfoundation.org...

The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

Over 50% of the population, effectively, pays no taxes (by time you figure direct monetary benefits).

www.taxfoundation.org...

In Figure 8 when all federal, state and local government spending and taxes are
accounted for, the bottom three quintiles of income receive on average more dollars of
government spending than they pay in total taxes. In contrast, households in the top two
quintiles pay more in total taxes than they receive in government spending. Households
in the bottom quintile receive an average of $31,185 more in government spending than
they pay in taxes, while households in the top quintile pay $48,449 more in taxes than
they receive in government spending.

In the aggregate, households in the top two income quintiles pay roughly $1.031 trillion
more in total taxes than they receive in government spending. In contrast, households in
the bottom three quintiles receive roughly $1.527 trillion more in government spending
than they pay in total taxes. The difference between the two figures of approximately
$496 billion represents the amount that federal, state and local government spending
exceeded tax revenues in Calendar Year 2004. Depending on what assumption is made
about which households receive the most non-tax-revenue-financed government
spending, between roughly $1.031 trillion and $1.527 trillion of fiscal resources were
redistributed downward from the two highest-income quintiles to the three lowest-income
quintiles through federal, state and local tax and spending policy in 2004.27

You and I, effectively, do not pay taxes. Therefor, the money used to bail-out our banks didn't come from us. It came from the top 40% - mostly from the top 5%.

And believe it or not...A financially solvent middle class is good for the wealthiest 2% as well as everyone else.

Not when your financial solvency comes from taxing the upper 2%.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


and

reply to post by Aim64C


I'm going to reply to both of you because you both responded to me in roughly the same manner;

In a sole proprietorship, you can take business deductions just like with other forms of business. This means that you can deduct things such as operating expenses and advertising, as well as business-related travel and entertainment (though be very careful to ensure it really is business-related). Start-up costs, such as buying business equipment, can also typically be deducted.

So all those expenditures are tax deductible anyway, all the re-investment into your business is considered expenditures that aren't counted towards your overall tax...so once again, even as a sole-proprietor you're making more than $250,000 after expenditures that, I believe, you should be taxed on.

Finally, any 'sole proprietor' with more than 50 employees might as well be a tyrant. Both for hoarding the profits and cutting out their employees. Don't give me this argument, "Oh he's only making $250,000 from owning his business!" Only making...only making?! Only ripping off his employees and perpetuating his wealth, but that's the 'trickle down' part, right? As long as the wealthy business owner is doing well, it will stifle their greed and they'll be more apt to share that wealth voluntarily.