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.

 

Republicans still going on about trickle down economics

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 



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.


And this is what the whole thing is all about.

It's about how you feel entitled to something that you aren't, and wish to use the government to extort someone else.

You've already prejudged the situation. Most sole proprietorships making that kind of money are consulting businesses/firms, and private contractors (such as electrical, plumbing, etc). Many working with them under that proprietorship make good money as well, and when they are not at industry standard - they are often above.

Being a secretary or accountant for someone's electrical contracting business can be a -very- good gig.

I simply don't understand why it is you are so totally pissed about someone making more money than you. I probably make less than you do. I don't see the problem with someone making money. I see the problem in getting upset about it and saying: "We need to tax these people because they make more money than me!" That, my friend, is pure jealousy and - from my standpoint - quite evil and unjust.

I'm not going to sit here and say that everyone making that much money is saintly or hasn't behaved in a responsible manner. I will, however, say that the overall hatred of this economic class that seems to have infected this nation will only lead to bad things. At its core, it is nothing but envy and jealousy of another person's status and standard of living.

Sure - I want a lot of nice things. The house I have dreamed up is both a survivalist's dream and will cost a pretty penny to boot. I, however, do not feel I am entitled to the ability to look at another person's mansion and demand that person pay me so that I can have an HD TV in my apartment. Sure - I may find it rather ridiculous that they get this mansion by giving out pay-day loans - and I may view their practice as predatory and unethical - but people are dumb enough to get into it. This guy made a service that other people want and are willing to pay for. The worst I should be able to do to him is educate people on how getting a pay-day loan is about the worst financial decision imaginable.

This idea that we can tax the rich for our own convenience will destroy our society.




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


About 10 million people make more than $200,000 in this country.

About 44 million people live in poverty in this country.

I make about the national average income. I think I have more than enough. I don't want to tax the rich more so I can buy a bigger TV.

I want to tax them more so that family in poverty can have a decent meal every night.
I want to tax them more so that impoverished kid can go to school next year with clothes that fit.
I want to tax them more so that my government can provide an American family in poverty with health care and not crushing debt.
I want to tax them more so others have a chance to increase their wealth too and not struggle with the decision to pay the rent or put food on the table.

44 million people live with these facts everyday, that's 44 million too many for the 'richest' country in the world.

Edit to add: I pay more in taxes because I choose to. I still give to charity.
edit on 15-12-2010 by links234 because: Little extra about me.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Taxing rich people will not accomplish those goals.

There is only one way to accomplish those goals, and that is through market driven economic growth.

In order to understand why there is so much wealth disparity, one first must recognize what causes such wealth disparity - and it is certainly NOT the free market.

GOVERNMENT causes the disparity through its spending and control of the currency. Washington has the richest counties in the country for a reason, and it isn't because of the free market.

The rate of wealth disparity is correlated to the rate of inflation, which can be observed to skyrocket after the US went off the gold standard.

In the 1960s it was possible for the average man to support an entire family, own a house, retire, and put his kids through college. The bleeding dry of the middle class has been accomplished through the mechanism of counterfeiting by the central bank, and that counterfeit money was then spent into the economy through government.

Those who get the new money first acquire the most wealth.

Those who get the interest from the new debt acquire the residual wealth.

The wealth disparity in American can be blamed entirely on government.

edit on 15-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


There 'shipping jobs overseas for cheap labor, maybe if Americans agreed to work for the same wages and under the same conditions they wouldn''t feel the need to move away.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
We have Republicans who are still saying that tax cuts with no spending reductions is great. This results in massive debt. And we have the Democrats still claiming that tax increase and massive spending increases is great for the economy. This results in massive debt and a diminished economy.

The Federal government is way too bloated and overstretched into American's and the world's business. There is too much money and power for foreigner and corporate interests to purchase, hence massive corruption. We need a big reset in diminished Federal power and activity, which would sustain lower taxes and a growing economy, but we will never be permitted to have it.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





Fourth, Supply-Side Economics, which Trickle Down Economics is loosely built upon operates under the assumption of a Free Market. My own guesstamation is that our economy rides a 5-10% Free Market while the other 90-95% is State Controlled (either via taxes, regulation or law).

That last point really throws a wrench in any economic theory based upon the Free Markets. They are not. The State controls large swaths of it either directly or by proxy.


Truer words were never spoken. As far as I can tell this administration is hell bent on finishing the destruction of the US of A. There are four key points

First over 50% of the labor force is employed by small business.

Second the Obamacare bill just wiped the floor with small businesses. Remember the 3% return on investment from the first post??

Now consider what having to fund health care does. No one who is small will go over 50 employees.

Third the other provision is the new 1099 rule

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- An all-but-overlooked provision of the health reform law is threatening to swamp U.S. businesses with a flood of new tax paperwork.

Section 9006 of the health care bill -- just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document -- mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year.

The stealth change radically alters the nature of 1099s and means businesses will have to issue millions of new tax documents each year.

Right now, the IRS Form 1099 is used to document income for individual workers other than wages and salaries....

But under the new rules, if a freelance designer buys a new iMac from the Apple Store, they'll have to send Apple a 1099. A laundromat that buys soap each week from a local distributor will have to send the supplier a 1099 at the end of the year tallying up their purchases.

The bill makes two key changes to how 1099s are used. First, it expands their scope by using them to track payments not only for services but also for tangible goods. Plus, it requires that 1099s be issued not just to individuals, but also to corporations.

Taken together, the two seemingly small changes will require millions of additional forms to be sent out.

"It's a pretty heavy administrative burden," particularly for small businesses without large in-house accounting staffs, says Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Businesses....
money.cnn.com...


80% of small businesses fail what will these two additional burdens do to the survival rate of small companies in a miserable economy?



According to Dun & Bradstreet reports, "Businesses with fewer than 20 employees have only a 37% chance of surviving four years (of business) and only a 9% chance of surviving 10 years." Restaurants only have a 20% chance of surviving 2 years. Of these failed business, only 10% of them close involuntarily due to bankruptcy and the remaining 90% close because the business was not successful, did not provide the level of income desired or was too much work for their efforts... The failure rate for new businesses seems to be around 70% to 80% in the first year and only about half of those who survive the first year will remain in business the next five years. www.moyak.com...


Fourth and last is the new Farm Safety Farce that imposes reams of red tape on farmers.

For example in my state all farms except for 171 are family held. That is 53759 family farms with $3,145,202,000 spent on supplies and $617,679,000 spent on labor. A total of $3,762,881,000 added to the states economy. Then add in the Horse Population of 256,000 horses with a Total Economic Impact of over $ over 704 million and you get 4.5 BILLION. A real healthy chunk of change. (based on 2002 Ag census)

Add in the doubling of the money supply and the foreclosure mess and this is NOT a healthy business climate.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

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?"


Plutocracy Reborn: U.S. Wealth Inequality Gap Largest since 1928


The greater the disparity in wealth between the very rich and everyone else, the more unstable an economy becomes.

Our nation has now created a larger gap in the distribution of wealth than the massive chasm that helped fuel the Great Depression. In 1928, one year before the global economic collapse, the wealthiest .001% of the U.S. population owned 892 times more than 90% of the nation’s citizens.

Today, the top .001% of the U.S. population owns 976 times more than the entire bottom 90%. This is not sustainable, and makes for a very volatile economy. It would appear that the American empire is about to crash.

ecolocalizer.com...

Skewed Wealth Distribution and the Roots of the Economic Crisis
hnn.us...

Wealth has been moving from the lower and middle class to the wealthiest 5% in this country at an accelerated pace for the past 40 years. Much more so during GOP administrations, but also under Dem Adminstrations. Not being partisan. This is statistical fact.

Americans have dealt with the insufficient wealth to keep the economy going through "coping methods"

During the late 70's and 80's...we brought women/spouses into the work force. This boosted income for the middle class..The shift of wealth continued away from the middle and lower class to the upper 5% until 2 incomes were not sufficient to keep the economy moving.

Next coping mechanism...CREDIT...mostly from inflated home values...and we lived off that from the 90's until the recent "Great Recession". That kind of credit living is NOT comming back.

We have no more "coping mechanisms" to keep our economy alive....no more band-aids to compensate for the massive wealth inequity in the untited states. We need to stop shifting the wealth to the top 5% via tax breaks, bailouts, deregulation of the financial industry etc. and get the middle class healthy again or we are all screwed...middle class, lower class and the wealthiest.

I am not alone in this realization...economists of every stripe and political leaning are observing the same thing.


Originally posted by Aim64C


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.


I graduated with a degree in economics, with honors and I own a business...I make more money than most folks...I have no reason to be "jealous" and am far from incompetent in matters of economics or finance.

I can only assume that your personal attacks and emotional response means you have little substance to contribute in the discussion.


Originally posted by Aim64C
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.


Have you ever heard of a Credit Default Swap or any of those new fangled "complex" financial instruments that Wall Street demanded the Gov. not regulate?

The vast majority of credit default was not FHA loans.

Your argument seems uninformed at best.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out to the tune of 135 Billion.

Bailout went far beyond aid for U.S. banks

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Reserve revealed details Wednesday of trillions of dollars in emergency aid it provided to U.S. and foreign banks during the financial crisis.

New documents show the biggest loans and other aid for U.S. institutions over time went to
Citigroup ($2.2 trillion),
followed by Merrill Lynch ($2.1 trillion),
Morgan Stanley ($2 trillion),
Bear Stearns ($960 billion),
Bank of America ($887 billion),
Goldman Sachs ($615 billion),
JPMorgan Chase ($178 billion) and
Wells Fargo ($154 billion).

www.pressdemocrat.com...

The Fed's bailout went to Bank of America, Republic of Korea and McDonalds?
www.examiner.com...




Originally posted by Aim64C

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.


The marginal tax rate for those making amounts over 372K is 35%, toss in a tax attorney, tax loopholes, deductions etc. and it is much less.

By any math they are not paying "over half thier earnings."


Originally posted by Aim64C
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?"


You are starting to sound like a band leader of an idiot parade. I benefit from no government programs, am not under-employed and, from the ignorance displayed in your posts, am fairly certain better educated both formally and informally than yourself.

Not all those who call for justice are victims of injustice...some just have a moral compass...and understand that a viable middle class is neccessary for a country to survive...and a bankrupt middle class preceedes collapse.

Not rocket science..


Originally posted by Aim64C
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?


The idea that it offends you that "the masses" should be allowed to determine whether a tax break on the wealthiest 2% should expire...after the largest, singular transfer of wealth from the masses to the richest amongst us in the history of the planet occured...which BTW was NOT voted on by the "masses"...it is just mind boggling.

How about every institution that recieved a bailout refund every cent....and then directly issue equal unconditional loan amounts to the general public equalling what they "borrowed". Then we can have a discussion about the future.


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?


Uhhh...They are the consumer...The 98% of the masses that buy new stuff from corporations owned by the 1%...kind of vital component for an economy...

Not sure who I am debating with here?

[qoute]

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.

Didn't we just pay them Trillions to "exist"? Is the middle class consumer less vital to an economy than the wealthiest 2%? I am pretty sure they will get thier money back when the middle class recovers and the economy picks back up....I am at least as sure of this as I was that Wall Street would recover when they asked the Gov. to give them trillions of our money.


This is what separates the smart from the stupid. Smart people, such as myself,


Sorry...still not buying it.



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:


Awesome!! I was unaware of that. I have some serious money due back from the IRS then.......can you direct me to where I can fill out some special form?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

It's about how you feel entitled to something that you aren't, and wish to use the government to extort someone else.



Nope...that was the Bailouts for Wall Street...what he is discussing is letting a tax break for millionaires expire.

You certainly do confuse things.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
To all the proponents of trickle down or supply side economics, or whatever they're calling it nowadays;
ask yourself a serious question?
Would these same wealthiest 2% be ok with the tax break if it were ONLY applied to those who invest said savings back into the American economy to promote jobs? It isn't exactly subjective. Why is it ok for those who are given the tax break to delegate labor overseas?

I'm no economist obviously, but I remember Reagan doing the exact same thing and it doesn't work. It sounds nice in theory, but this trickle down theory is only as effective as the intention of the person receiving the tax break. Without any sort of regulation or stipulation, we just have the wealthy getting wealthier with the choice to do whatever they want with their tax cut. There is a responsibility that comes with the tax break. Is it not the truth that with the savings from the tax break that the employer can afford to hire more, cheaper labor abroad?

I guess what I wish to express is - Why shouldn't there be a clause in the tax break that states that a mandated portion of the tax break be put back into the American economy in some way. That you aren't applicable for the cut if you do not put it back into the same economy that gave it to you? Otherwise the entire premise of the economic theory is non exsistant.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
How exactly is "trickle-down economics" supposed to work in a society that produces literally nothing?

Anyone?

We are literally a plutocracy. There is an insane financial regime dominating this country. There is about 1% of the population that owns more than 95% of the population combined. How is this even possible, honestly, and yet I'm supposed to listen to people argue that trickle-down economics is good? That, we're supposed to continue giving these people tax breaks?

I'm sorry, but that is quite insane.

I would start listening to these arguments if the poverty rate in America wasn't completely out of control.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C








This idea that we can tax the rich for our own convenience will destroy our society.


Cut and pasting from the Limbaugh letter should be outlawed on ATS!

What will destroy our society is when enough people wake up to the disparity between rich and poor and start shooting people in Hummers, Porsche's, Escalades, Navigators etc. when they drive thru poor neighborhoods on their way to the country club. Do you think perhaps things might change then??

Perhaps the proponents of "trickle down" need to let a little more trickle down! So far the exact opposite has happened.

All the drugs, cheap booze and crap funneled into the "hoods" can't stop the rage that is building.

Want Peace? Work for justice!......and jobs, not chumpass jobs making happy meals.
edit on 15-12-2010 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
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.


Oh my. That was a very disturbing post.

1) How, exactly, does one "cut out" or "rip off" their employees, by themselves being financially successful? In exchange for their labor:
a) Employee receives a paycheck
b) Employee receives benefits
c) Employee "voluntarily" accepted the job and is completely free to "voluntarily" go find another, if he/she
is dissatisfied with any aspect of it.
d) Without that employer, there is no employee

2) How much annual income would you consider "enough", for anyone to have?

3) To whom would you assign the power to decide the limitations on one's income and/or wealth? Do you really want someone to have that much power?

4) What happens, once you have rid the country of all the evil rich? Who then will become the enemy, responsible for the continuing financial woes of the country?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 




Wealth has been moving from the lower and middle class to the wealthiest 5% in this country at an accelerated pace for the past 40 years. Much more so during GOP administrations, but also under Dem Adminstrations. Not being partisan. This is statistical fact.


This is largely due to the switch from small family owned shops to large corporate stores - not any tax policy.

Of course, the shift towards corporate stores is natural in a free market and our technology - it is one of the most efficient ways of production and distribution available to us at this time. It certainly has not been helped, however, by the increasingly complex tax laws, licenses, and lobbyist-backed market engineering that restrict private business operation and start-up competition.


We have no more "coping mechanisms" to keep our economy alive....no more band-aids to compensate for the massive wealth inequity in the untited states. We need to stop shifting the wealth to the top 5% via tax breaks, bailouts, deregulation of the financial industry etc. and get the middle class healthy again or we are all screwed...middle class, lower class and the wealthiest.


Marxist rambling with no real solutions proposed. I quoted this for reasons other than that - see below.


I graduated with a degree in economics, with honors and I own a business...I make more money than most folks...I have no reason to be "jealous" and am far from incompetent in matters of economics or finance.


And yet you still don't seem to understand the difference between wealth and capital.

Wealth is value. For example - I work part-time at present. I, ultimately, contribute very little to the functions of society. Therefor, my wealth is low - as I have a low value. Regardless of how smart I - or anyone else - think(s) I am; I am of low wealth. You could give me a $10K per year stimulus to "shift money to the lower class" - and I would still not have gained any wealth from that transaction.

Wealth is value - or productivity. That cannot be transferred. The only way to increase wealth is to make it easy for people to be productive in society. How do you do that? You deregulate, you allow people to do what they are good at and get paid for it. You simplify the tax code so that you don't have to hire an accountant to make sure the IRS isn't going to come shove a three-letter dildo where you don't want it. You reduce government control over market practices to reduce the power of corporate lobbyists (who can and will use their methods to get government policy to control markets).

I'm an electronics person by training and trade. I can wire everything from a set of Christmas lights to the radar in an aircraft (that is my rate - an I-level Aviation Electronics Technician). The legalities involved with me starting up my own trade and practice make it pretty much impossible from my current standpoint. The job is rather simple for me, and I can certainly compete in the market, price and ability-wise. I'm not going to say it's "all the government's fault" - I'm as much to blame for not getting my rear in gear earlier. However - for myself and several others I know, we have the ability - but the government restrictions placed on the market add an extra hurdle that we can't clear with our existing state (my ex's father, for example - could practically raise an economic class if he went into electrical work, and he has both the experience and the capability - by time you add in family matters and the licensing requirements, he's left with a pie in the sky).

You are not going to increase the wealth of the middle class by taxing the rich and setting up more benefit programs. It's never worked.


Have you ever heard of a Credit Default Swap or any of those new fangled "complex" financial instruments that Wall Street demanded the Gov. not regulate?

The vast majority of credit default was not FHA loans.

Your argument seems uninformed at best.


FDIC.

I know - it's one of those four-letter things that people forget about.


The Fed's bailout went to Bank of America, Republic of Korea and McDonalds?


A lot of those have government contracts, as well. McDonald's has contracts to work on military bases and in other countries (such as the ROK, Iraq, etc). I'm not saying everything they bailed out was directly due to FHA or FDIC - but those institutions set the precedent for government-insured loans and securities.

As for the ROK - the whole world would practically stop functioning if Korea did. They build and maintain the oil and gas tankers we (and everyone else) use, they make critical components for virtually every device sold in the Western and Eastern markets (if they didn't make something in the device - they were involved in whatever made what you bought). Korea is what would happen if you gave China quality control standards and industrial competency.

Again - not everything they did was part of the FHA and FDIC - but the vast majority of it was established under that context and what became of the bailouts extended from that.


The marginal tax rate for those making amounts over 372K is 35%, toss in a tax attorney, tax loopholes, deductions etc. and it is much less.

By any math they are not paying "over half thier earnings."


By time you factor in state, local, and property tax - they are putting in half their income.

Sale's tax in most areas is about 10%. Property tax is going to vary by county - but I've got about 10% property tax - which is a recurring tax on assets even after they have been paid for (so a 10% property tax on a $500K house is going to be more than 10% of your $300K income). That's not including state and city income tax (St. Louis and Kansas City both have an income tax - it's only like 1% or so flat-rate, but it does apply to all who work in the city, including commuters - so it's kind of become an issue that local talk shows are tossing about).

Some of that could be capital gains - but, honestly, I don't think there is very good information out there on how much of what is capital gains. I know people living off of capital gains who gross less than $150K - that's a few million dollars in the bank, depending upon how they have it invested - but not enough to break away into the higher tiers.


Not all those who call for justice are victims of injustice...some just have a moral compass...and understand that a viable middle class is neccessary for a country to survive...and a bankrupt middle class preceedes collapse.


I was actually giving you credit. Now you just really are stupid with no redeeming qualities, other than you can make coherent sentences. I do appreciate that about you.


The idea that it offends you that "the masses" should be allowed to determine whether a tax break on the wealthiest 2% should expire...after the largest, singular transfer of wealth from the masses to the richest amongst us in the history of the planet occured...which BTW was NOT voted on by the "masses"...it is just mind boggling.


This is simply ignorant.

For starters, over half of all federal income tax revenue came from the top 2%.

Only the top 40% of the population actually pay effective taxes - and only then they pay by an average of about $1K more than they receive in benefits (which means it's more like the top 30% who actually pay taxes).

60% of the population - the vast majority, receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. That's the bottom 60% - I might add, just in case there is some kind of confusion.

"Your money" did not go to the wealthy. It is the other way around. An average of about 1 trillion dollars is moved, every year, from the top 40% to the lower 60% (with the most being funneled into the lower 20%).

Our tax system is already doing -exactly- what you propose we do. And things are only getting worse. It's because you, and the general majority of those in Congress, do not understand the difference between wealth and capital.


How about every institution that recieved a bailout refund every cent....and then directly issue equal unconditional loan amounts to the general public equalling what they "borrowed". Then we can have a discussion about the future.


They will refund every cent. Corporations pay far more in taxes than our income tax amounts to. Income tax amounts to less than 40% of all government revenue.

And they will issue loans to people. That's part of fractional reserve banking - and part of why the banks were targeted for the bailouts. It could work out well, or it could backfire pretty harshly. You should read up on fractional reserve banking and how a central bank really throws the whole deal way out of whack. One can't argue the great potential for growth it has... but it makes every financial lending institution inherently insolvent, and quite to the extreme.


Uhhh...They are the consumer...The 98% of the masses that buy new stuff from corporations owned by the 1%...kind of vital component for an economy...

Not sure who I am debating with here?


Wong, sir. The middle class are those who produce and provide the goods and services that the upper class purchase and rely upon. They are also the consumers who purchase goods and services provided by the lower class and distributorships owned and founded by the wealthier classes.

The key, here, is that they provide the essential goods and services to the wealthy classes. They are the skilled labor, the career professionals.

To have wealth, you have to do something of value.


Didn't we just pay them Trillions to "exist"? Is the middle class consumer less vital to an economy than the wealthiest 2%? I am pretty sure they will get thier money back when the middle class recovers and the economy picks back up....I am at least as sure of this as I was that Wall Street would recover when they asked the Gov. to give them trillions of our money.


No, we didn't. We already exist on their dime - by time you break down the taxes. As I have already stated - only the top 40% actually pay into the tax system over what they receive in benefits. This means you and I, effectively, do not pay taxes.


Sorry...still not buying it.


Didn't expect you to. Self-awareness is part of sentience.


Awesome!! I was unaware of that. I have some serious money due back from the IRS then.......can you direct me to where I can fill out some special form?


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



For every dollar of tax burden, households in the bottom three quintiles receive more than
one dollar of government spending, while households in the two top quintiles receive less
than one dollar. Overall, households in the bottom quintile receive $8.21 in government
spending for every dollar of tax, while households in the third quintile receive $1.30, and
households in the top quintile receive $0.41.


Don't worry - you never stood a chance. I knew your response before you made it.

reply to post by links234
 



About 10 million people make more than $200,000 in this country.

About 44 million people live in poverty in this country.


Poverty-level is something like $15-20K, depending upon where you are looking at. Just going by the raw numbers - the "poor" out number the "rich" 4:1 - attempting to equalize the income will result in a rough average of $40K. Maybe a little higher, maybe a little lower.

This is why the catch-phrase "trickle-up poverty" has been applied to the notion of wealth redistribution.


I make about the national average income. I think I have more than enough. I don't want to tax the rich more so I can buy a bigger TV.


Are we sure about that one?


I want to tax them more so that family in poverty can have a decent meal every night.


Is this somehow the responsibility of the rich people? I mean, we can't ask you. You're so hard at work making the average income and posting on internet forums. You couldn't be assed to volunteer at a shelter or anything.

The problem with social justice is that it's not a social activity. It always gets passed off onto those perceived to be better off than they are. I don't volunteer my time as often as I should. I do often volunteer money I don't really have. But I look around - many of the wealthy in our church are funding all kinds of various things that end up getting a low turn-out from people who seem to be of the opinion that the wealthy owe others something.

I'm not going to say that all the wealthy are just throwing money out the door - but a lot of them have money specifically to put into productive ideas and concepts. Hell - that's why I want money - I've got space-ships to build and laws of physics to try and break.

I'm all for the government funding community programs that focus on training people for different trades and otherwise develop their person while being comfortable. People helping people. I am not, however, for this persecution of people with wealth and entitlement concepts.


I want to tax them more so that impoverished kid can go to school next year with clothes that fit.


Again - same problem.

One of the schools in my home town area received a lot of coats and clothing in the form of private and corporate donations. The school let them sit around and finally decided to throw them away. The person tasked with this (a mother who volunteers at the school), instead took her own time and money to wash the clothing and donate it to a thrift store. I know the family - and they don't have a whole lot of extra money or time.

These were donations - no expense, whatsoever, to the school or families who would benefit from them.

I expect entitlement programs to be no better managed.


I want to tax them more so that my government can provide an American family in poverty with health care and not crushing debt.


So... food, clothing, healthcare.... the only thing I'm missing to be pretty well set is a roof over my .. I like your way of thinking - I can just vote myself a standard of living.


I want to tax them more so others have a chance to increase their wealth too and not struggle with the decision to pay the rent or put food on the table.


And vote myself a pay-raise, too! You've got this whole democracy thing figured out, don't you?


44 million people live with these facts everyday, that's 44 million too many for the 'richest' country in the world.


To be honest - I don't really care, and there's no reason in the world you should, either. There are a million deer out there, right now, that are pretty damned cold. Thousands of homeless animals, tens of thousands of dead critters on the side of the road....

Here's what matters to me: when I meet someone, I take a personal interest in their well-being. I take the time to try and teach them things I know, to encourage them to improve their life, and to support them in ways that are not destructive to either party (IE - not enabling and not doing to the point where I am in danger of failing).

Until I meet that person - their death or life really doesn't mean that much to me. Just as you don't sit up and worry about the deer that are cold (maybe he fell into the river as he was trying to get a drink, or stepped out on some ice that gave way, and now he's really damned cold), or the dead animals on the road. It's pretty pointless to worry about the state of people and families that you do not know, and will likely never know. Nor is it productive to force monetary donation through government spending in such an anonymous manner, especially when it's on the dollar of someone else.

Once I meet you, I'll take a bullet for you. You are then part of my responsibility. When I volunteer at a shelter, I take personal responsibility for those around me - who are they? How are they doing? Are they in need of more than just food? And, most importantly: Are they making any progress?

That's not to say that someone who isn't making any progress should not be fed. That's up to the policy of the shelter, not myself. But it is my responsibility to ask them questions and try to encourage them to improve. Even if they can't immediately improve their economic situation - to improve their skills, education, or something that can be of use in the future. Teaching someone how to read and write can go a long way - and still others need some help, quite literally, dealing with intense paranoia and mental issues that are often to the severity where medication is advised (and unlikely to be received - even if supplied via government programs, due to the nature of their illness).


Edit to add: I pay more in taxes because I choose to. I still give to charity.


Aren't we all just saintly.

reply to post by whaaa
 



Cut and pasting from the Limbaugh letter should be outlawed on ATS!


Who?



What will destroy our society is when enough people wake up to the disparity between rich and poor and start shooting people in Hummers, Porsche's, Escalades, Navigators etc. when they drive thru poor neighborhoods on their way to the country club. Do you think perhaps things might change then??


Such a literal sense of class warfare.

I drive a Corolla - but any excuse to shoot back at people making a fuss over not getting the money that belongs to someone else is acceptable. I'd gladly put a round through you.


Perhaps the proponents of "trickle down" need to let a little more trickle down! So far the exact opposite has happened.


Could have something to do with the fact you seem have no skills other than mugging people, apparently.


All the drugs, cheap booze and crap funneled into the "hoods" can't stop the rage that is building.


The supply tends to follow the demand. In either case, I am personally for dropping fuel-air explosives on the "hood." Reduce the demand for drugs and thereby reduce the problems they cause - and directly eliminate the source of a number of crimes.

Yes, it's genocide. You've put me in a bad mood. Problems cannot be solved with violence - but they can certainly be ended in a very expedient manner. When I am in a bad mood, I value the ends over the means.


Want Peace? Work for justice!......and jobs, not chumpass jobs making happy meals.


Here's the problem; you want a job that pays well, but have no concept of social or economic value (wealth). You don't work in a department store for the paycheck - you work to contribute to the overall activity and productivity of society, and are compensated for that through industry-standard wages (the translation of your apparent wealth to capital earnings to be exchanged as an indication of wealth/productivity).

Making happy meals at McDonald's is productive - even if it's only valued at minimum wage. Wealth/value is dependent upon several factors - availability of people capable of doing the job, the value of what is being produced/done, and your diversity within the industry (eventually leading to supervisory and management opportunities).

In order to have a job making higher-wealth products/services, you must first have the skill to do what is required. Next, someone either has to have a job opening within a business/corporation, or you must have the tools, materials, and capital to start your own business. This second option is vastly over-looked and under-appreciated in our employment-driven culture. You don't go to school to learn a trade and potentially provide it as an individual - you go to school to learn how to be employed. It's a dangerous gap in American thinking.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
Oh my. That was a very disturbing post.


I did go a little off the deep-end.


Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by links234
 

It's pretty pointless to worry about the state of people and families that you do not know, and will likely never know.


This one line, the best example of many in your response, is what will eternally seperate you and I in our opinions on world matters. You go a. and continue fighting your good fight and I'll continue fighting mine.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 



This one line, the best example of many in your response, is what will eternally seperate you and I in our opinions on world matters. You go a. and continue fighting your good fight and I'll continue fighting mine.


This is your problem. You're not a good strategist or business personality, and thus have no concept of how to utilize different personalities and sensibilities to achieve a productive outcome.

No system that arbitrarily establishes a standard of living and provides for it is going to succeed. This is why the USSR failed. This is why Greece is failing. This is why China is frantically extending retirement age, and covering up its own debt by purchasing America's.

Your ideal solution will not work. Period.

That does not, however, mean that your viewpoint and personality cannot be utilized productively.

-You- with the desire and means to fund social programs, need to do such at a local level. You need to support individuals, such as myself, that take personal responsibility for the well-being of people they interact with, and allow these people to invest the capital you are responsible for collecting into the development of these persons in the community. The goals of this community enhancement group, social improvement center, or whatever the heck you want to call it, need to be clearly stated and adhered to. At no time should you undertake goals outside the mission (what we call in the military "Mission Creep") - it is one of the most detrimental factors affecting charity organizations and why they become ineffective. If you are providing food, and food only - then that's what you do - you don't suddenly take up trying to find people housing without serious planning on the matter.

If you want, at the local level, (IE - state or lower), work with your legislators to propose legislation to help fund these types of groups. Have that legislation define structure of these groups and how they are to be funded, as well as how the government is permitted to interact with these groups (restrictions and powers of both parties need to be clearly defined so as to avoid the creep of power, organization, goals, etc).

That is how this country was intended to work. Many of the founding members of this country have stated the dangers of the public "learning they can vote themselves money." Using taxes, returns, and virtually anonymous social aid programs remove the interaction between those being helped and those providing the help. It separates the classes, quite expressly.

I realize people need help. I would like to live in a society where, when I needed help, I knew there was a place I could go. That place, however, should not be the mailbox for a government-stamped check. It should be a designated place in the community where people can get to know me and personally oversee my progress.

This makes it harder for me to simply exist off of the system, and makes it more likely that I will actually get relevant help and assistance.

If you want, I can practically draft the legislation to submit to your legislature and flow-chart the organizational system and highlight a broad-spectrum assistance center. I'm rather bored at the moment, so I may go a. and start on that and post it within a week or so in the Social Issues subforum, charging people around the nation to drive the plan home.

Communities that want it can pass the legislation. Communities that don't can decline it. Of course - the key here would be to discontinue many social welfare programs - rather difficult as these are mostly federally backed and state implemented (I'm fairly certain the way things are currently done is unconstitutional - but, that's not meant a whole lot in quite a while). This prevents redundancy and "I would rather just get the check in the mail than go talk to people." Without it - no valid data can be collected.

Another important thing to consider is the trades that would be taught. This would not be a simple "we'll send you to school" sort of thing. In areas where certified volunteers could be found, they would teach people trades along with performance of those trades. In areas where they could not - trade schools or community colleges could provide the training and the individuals supervised by instructors. One of the key trades would be construction and maintenance of living spaces. Rather than give these people a home - have them build the "dorms" they will live in. Have them maintain and operate farms and vehicle shops that could be utilized by the general community (the farms would mostly go to providing food for these people, however).

The bottom line is to make this place one that employers will come to respect - the people coming out of here should be easily capable of taking on a number of trade skills and understand concepts of financial management and personal accountability.

It should not be seen as a "bad" place, but one that is there when necessary, and that ultimately returns the investment to the community (and not just in a monetary sense - if a auto/body shop is present, for example, the only expense to the customer would be that of materials - they are already paying the labor through taxes, at least in theory).

It should also work with other community resources. There is a community college here. Let's take someone like myself - a few years of military experience and a lot of training in component-level electronics and maintenance. I know a thing or two about management and my trade. To help handle the extra volume - someone like myself could be brought into the program and used to help teach others the trade as an assistant to the instructor - unpaid, because of my utilizing the system, but able to use the experience and the resources to eventually become certified to be an instructor - or start my own practice. I have benefited the system while within it - and am benefiting society by aiding in the rebounding of functional individuals back into society, along with myself.

I'm in the military - I recognize the benefits that come with being in such a communist society. The problem is that people don't know where to draw the line and want to extend it beyond a point where it is practical and/or functional. The goal should never be to "give the poor a meal." The goal should be to "keep the struggling alive while teaching them how to succeed."

In the words of one of the most misquoted historical figures ever: "Give a man a fish, and he shall eat for a night. Teach a man to fish, and he shall eat for a lifetime." For whatever reason, people have always credited Jesus with socialism and communism. I believe that is over-politicizing his message. Capitalist or Communist - the principle is the same - giving a person the resources to exist is far inferior to giving someone the skills to acquire the resources to exist.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Thank you for the thoughtful post. It's where our ideals and end objectives lose themselves in certain arenas of debate that disagreements arise.

What you just described is optimal and preferred, in my opinion. It's communism, without being so Stalin-ish. As a socialist, I like it.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by maybereal11
 




Wealth has been moving from the lower and middle class to the wealthiest 5% in this country at an accelerated pace for the past 40 years. Much more so during GOP administrations, but also under Dem Administrations. Not being partisan. This is statistical fact.


This is largely due to the switch from small family owned shops to large corporate stores - not any tax policy.



I'll stop you there. I had assumed during our discussion by your articulate and well constructed posts that you were older than you are.

I think you are very bright and deserve to be listened to..

BUT...The tact you take and the arguments you make speak to little real world experience.

You were a teenager when this financial crisis began.

You went from living at home and High School directly to military service?

You are 21? 18 or 19 when the market began to collapse? 12 when GW was elected?

I am not criticizing you based on your age...I believe you are unusually bright ...but your arguments and views, while well articulated, lack the foundation of actual life experience..not to mention unnecessary bitterness..and when I pulled up your profile and read your introduction thread I realized why.

I own a business and have for over 20 years. I have employees that rely on me. A family I support. I sit down on a regular basis with Millionaires...executives and owners of corporations, it is the nature of my business...I FELT the most recent economic crisis in many different ways. My response to it personally and professionally was not academic, not a collection of political rhetoric or entertainment news opinions, but rather genuinely impacted the lives of those around me.

Experience counts....Begin a career, support a family, start a business, struggle financially...succeed and fail a few times...and then come back and talk to me about social justice, the poor, the middle class and the wealthy, the tax code and income distribution in the USA. I will listen.

Again...kudos for being bright for your age, but IMO you need to live in the world for a handful of years in a financially vulnerable way with folks depending on you and get a handle on your emotions before I can genuinely value your opinions.

My convictions were equally uncompromising at your age...and equally uninformed by real world experience...you will understand better what I mean in 10 years...for now you will think I am an a$#&**...and that's ok too.

Take it easy.

edit on 16-12-2010 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2010 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Trickle down economics are a THEORETICAL concept like the free market. In reality, free market has never been implemented or proven to work as people don't fullfil one of the core requirements...namely that people act rationally. We all know they don't, which is why free market doesn't work in reality.

Trickle down economics might have worked in a national economy without outside influences...but in today's world of globalization where people can spend their money abroad VERY easily, it just doesn't work as intended.

So just to get this clear: Globalization means that people getting a tax break can VERY easily invest abroad, therefore destroying any trickle down effects in the process. Globalization means trickle down economics WON'T WORK!

edit on 16-12-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C





I'm in the military - I recognize the benefits that come with being in such a communist society. The problem is that people don't know where to draw the line and want to extend it beyond a point where it is practical and/or functional. The goal should never be to "give the poor a meal." The goal should be to "keep the struggling alive while teaching them how to succeed."



Don't you see your hypocrisy? Who pays your salary and takes care of you. The Taxpayer!!

And it's debatable as to whether the military is cost effective. With the welfare going to the likes of Haliburton, KBR etc. with their corruption ripping off the American Taxpayer. Yet you begrudge the poor a decent lifestyle.
Perhaps if more attention was paid to the military ind. cplx and their corruption and stealing from the govt. we could train more of the poor to be productive. How about some solutions instead of Limbaugh rhetoric?

costofwar.com...
edit on 16-12-2010 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


This is a fascinating explanation of how the explanation of trickle down works. This is the template used for ages but it doesn't show the real world process.

Currently, during the worst economic situation since the depression, when government hacks keep harping on the "create jobs" platform, and when the government has borrowed trillions to do just that, something is very amiss.

There is one major fact that contradicts the trickle down theory - other than David Stockman the inventor of the meme who says it is bs: Currently corporations, those who are supposed to be stimulating the economy with jobs, are sitting on 1 trillion in cash. They are SITTING ON 1 trillion in cash. They are not spending it on jobs, or anything related to stimulating the economy. The are sitting on it and by doing so have effectively stopped growth.

To those who are convinced that trickle down works, based on their own personal experience of course (theory expounders need not reply), please explain the 1 trillion dollar situation? For once I'd like to hear how this works in practice from people who have done something related to it, rather than people who have "heard" about it and know the "THEORY" really well.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join