New study tells us what we already knew

[Care4all]

It's not ethical or morally correct to try and steal other people's money or tell them what to do with it.

Who made them, what you call their money? The Labor force? The backs of other's skills?

Paying their workers more, is not stealing!



“Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

—Abraham Lincoln, 18611

 

[Care4all]

Supply-side economics works every time it's implemented.

Then why didn't it work, as the op showed it didn't?

 

[DukeU]

Who made them, what you call their money? The Labor force? The backs of other's skills?

Let's see labor produce something without a factory or place to labor in.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Then why didn't it work, as the op showed it didn't?

You still have not defined what you mean be "didn't work".

What was supposed to happen. How would they know. What metrics ?

Are you always this prone to swallow this kind of reinforcement without thinking it through.

Who can argue that it didn't work when we don't know what the standard was and is.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Who made them, what you call their money? The Labor force? The backs of other's skills?

Paying their workers more, is not stealing!



“Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

—Abraham Lincoln, 18611

Those workers agreed to a contract. They took the jobs.

That's how it works.

If they want to benefit from the company they can buy stock like anyone else.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then why didn't it work, as the op showed it didn't?

It works every time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who made them, what you call their money? The Labor force? The backs of other's skills?

Paying their workers more, is not stealing!



“Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

—Abraham Lincoln, 18611

Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

Labor gets a much larger piece of the revenue than the owner.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It works every time.

As Care4all to explain how it didn't work.

If the criteria was supposed to be that the rich didn't get any richer....that would be simply ignorant.

 

[Care4all]

Let's see labor produce something without a factory or place to labor in.

Let's see a factory that requires manual labor, produce anything without a Labor force.

 

[Care4all]

Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

Labor gets a much larger piece of the revenue than the owner.

Why has the financial gap between the rich and poor grown greater after tax cuts for the wealthy?

 

[Care4all]

I'm not a full believer supply sider....

Demand comes first....

 

[luiza]

Only De CrepitUs could tell us what he believes we already know and be pleased about it .

I want to be told of things I know nothing about and read inspirational new perspectives .

Not hear from an old fool like De Crepitus repeating things like an early dementia sufferer .

 

[Andylusion]

50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says​

Turns out that only 1 group benefits from tax cuts for the rich.

If you guessed "the rich", you are correct.

Not just in the US, the study includes 18 different countries.

And in every one all it did was make the rich richer, expanding the inequality.


"Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't, the study found.

But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered. Instead of trickling down to the middle class, tax cuts for the rich may not accomplish much more than help the rich keep more of their riches and exacerbate income inequality, the research indicates."


And the republicans wanna do it again, of course.

View attachment 935832

I disagree. The lowest and middle class people are better off today, than at any time in the past. They have more material wealth than ever before.

Countries with high tax rates, does not show wealth trickled down to others.

Rich having less, doesn't mean you have more. It certainly didn't in the 1970s. The poor were not better off then.

 

[Mac-7]

50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says​

Turns out that only 1 group benefits from tax cuts for the rich.

If you guessed "the rich", you are correct.

Not just in the US, the study includes 18 different countries.

And in every one all it did was make the rich richer, expanding the inequality.


"Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't, the study found.

But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered. Instead of trickling down to the middle class, tax cuts for the rich may not accomplish much more than help the rich keep more of their riches and exacerbate income inequality, the research indicates."


And the republicans wanna do it again, of course.

View attachment 935832

Being a liberal academic researcher is such an easy job

They already know the conclusion of the research before they begin

So all they have to do is find the data that supports the summary page

 

[Andylusion]

I'm not a full believer supply sider....

Demand comes first....

The problem is, demand always exists. Without people investing and creating products and services, it doesn't matter what the demand is.

China is a perfect example. There was no time where demand didn't exist, yet they lived in object poverty.

You need people with money and able to invest, and create wealth.

There was a story out of China, about a guy who went to the junk yards and started pulling out corrugated metal sheets, cleaning them up, and selling them to rural Chinese as roofing.

Now before 1978, did demand for roofing not exist? Of course it did. Why didn't anyone provide roofing then? Because you need someone to invest the money into buying the metal roofing, and invest in fixing it up to make a profit. And without that profit incentive, no one is going to do it.

Demand doesn't matter unless you have an investor creating the supply.

And then you have things that no one knew they even wanted until someone invested to make it exist.

 

[initforme]

Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

Labor gets a much larger piece of the revenue than the owner.

So then why is the owner hiring labor when it's so easy just to do the work by himself. Everyone is better off when the owner doesn't hire.

 

[Mac-7]

The problem is, demand always exists. Without people investing and creating products and services, it doesn't matter what the demand is.

China is a perfect example. There was no time where demand didn't exist, yet they lived in object poverty.

You need people with money and able to invest, and create wealth.

There was a story out of China, about a guy who went to the junk yards and started pulling out corrugated metal sheets, cleaning them up, and selling them to rural Chinese as roofing.

Now before 1978, did demand for roofing not exist? Of course it did. Why didn't anyone provide roofing then? Because you need someone to invest the money into buying the metal roofing, and invest in fixing it up to make a profit. And without that profit incentive, no one is going to do it.

Demand doesn't matter unless you have an investor creating the supply.

And then you have things that no one knew they even wanted until someone invested to make it exist.

Libs dream that a socialist or communist government will replace capitalists as the investor

 

[Libby von H]

50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says​

Turns out that only 1 group benefits from tax cuts for the rich.

If you guessed "the rich", you are correct.

Not just in the US, the study includes 18 different countries.

And in every one all it did was make the rich richer, expanding the inequality.


"Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't, the study found.

But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered. Instead of trickling down to the middle class, tax cuts for the rich may not accomplish much more than help the rich keep more of their riches and exacerbate income inequality, the research indicates."


And the republicans wanna do it again, of course.

View attachment 935832

There is a legiitmate trickle down and this does not address it

You seem to think that wealthy Biden and wealthy Congress somehow were NOT feathering their own nest.

Majority of lawmakers in 116th Congress are millionaires
By Karl Evers-Hillstrom
April 23, 2020

Biden's tuition cancel helps a ton of staffers, Congressional members, Supremce Court aides, etc.

Trickle down would have to have at least 3 elements
1) Stop giving jobs to non-citizens and sending overseas (eg Solar

China to hold over 80% of global solar manufacturing capacity from 2023-26​

Despite local manufacturing policies in overseas markets, China’s expansion will dominate global solar supply chain, and widen the technology and cost gap)
2) Connect back what Pelois severed, the spending of money and the raising of money in taxes And stop Omnibus bills You can trickle down like a hurricane but if taxes are eating it up again.....
3) affirmand strengthen the family, aborton is destroying the Black community as is divorce and single-parent homes.
They can't get jobs because they have no skills, no work habits , no nothing

 

[Andylusion]

Why has the financial gap between the rich and poor grown greater after tax cuts for the wealthy?

It was growing greater before the tax cuts for the rich and poor.
It will always grow greater. There will never be a time it doesn't.

Let's take a simple example.

Say you run a lemonade stand. The stand brings in $100 a day. You pay $15 for upkeep. You take $5 as profit. You hire and pay me $80 to run the stand.

Now what do you do as a business owner? Do you just sit there running a stand collecting $5 a day from it? No, you invest in opening more stands.

Fast forward a few years, and you have 1,000 stands. Now you are collecting $5,000 a day.
You income has gone up.

Will my income go up? Well, back to my stand. My stand that I'm running for you still makes $100 a day. $15 to upkeep. And you make $5 profit. How much do I make? $80.

My income can't go up, because my stand only makes $100 a day. Your income is going to keep going up, as you open more lemonade stands. My income will not go up because the stand I'm working for still produces just $100 a day.

The income gap between the top and bottom is natural, and it is morally good and right. The person who created thousands of jobs and is providing millions of product for the public, should be rewarded with higher income and wealth.

 

[Andylusion]

Let's see a factory that requires manual labor, produce anything without a Labor force.

Actually I know a company just down the road from me, where originally the owners ran the entire company themselves. They built everything themselves.

So yes, they can do that. But this way they create thousands of jobs.

Now show me a labor force that can build anything without any investors? Show me that.
Venezuela. All the owners and investors left, and they have a huge labor force of unemployed people.

What do you see? Mass starvation and poverty.