RWs: you need to admit Hillary is right about the failure of trickle down economics

[Blackrook]

If I am a carpenter, the rich guy in my neighborhood is probably my best customer, he will order chairs from me while my poor neighbors will order nothing.

If the rich guy gets a break in his taxes, he might order an entire dining room set from me, and then I can feed my family.

I remember the yacht tax, which was a liberal idea to punish the rich for buying yachts. The rich took their business to yacht builders in other countries and shipped their yachts here, and then the American yacht companies all went out of business. Even the Democrats had to admit their stupidity and they repealed the yacht tax.

A lesson from the yacht tax

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Here's what I admit... Hillary has been part of t he system for the last 30 years, and she is running against it.

Makes prefect sense, right? "Look at the mess I have been a part of for 30 years, elect me to fix it!"

 

[flacaltenn]

Right wingers will never admit that. If they did, they wouldn't be right wingers any more.

Tell me, why did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts?

Obama signs bill to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two more years

Not only that. But the whole Obama justification for giving "tax cuts" to folks who pay NO Income Tax (thru forgiving a portion of the SocSec/Medicare contributions) was that the money was gonna supercharge the economy when these people spent their extra couple hundred bucks. It's never consistent. Always convenient for leftists to make the ridiculous claim that tax cuts don't stimulate -- unless YOU're the ones giving out the goodies.

Now -- because the goods that low income people might buy are no longer MADE IN AMERICA -- there is no actual economic stimulation anymore from doing that. Times have changed. The political dogma has not.

 

[Indeependent]

Supply Side is a DISASTER.
That's why we need Ricardian Free Trade.

 

[Oldstyle]

Once again...anyone who uses the term "trickle down economics" has announced one of two things...either that they are utterly CLUELESS about economics...or that they think YOU are utterly clueless about economics and you'll believe the bullshit they are spouting!

There are no such things as "trickle down profits"! If you work for a company that makes widgets then you get paid your wage upfront and you get paid that wage whether a profit is made or whether your company takes a loss producing those widgets. Profits "trickle" upwards. They always have...they always will!

 

[Boss]

So, you're saying that wealthy people don't create millions and millions of beautiful jobs...and it's not true that the wealthier they are the more jobs they produce?
I thought that was the point of reducing the tax burden on wealthy people.

Well I guess you thought wrong. Jobs are created when the market demands require them. It's easier for them to be created when money is plentiful and abundant. Wealthy people have no need to create or do anything... that's one of the advantages of being wealthy. They don't need to earn incomes because they've already earned them. So whenever you tax high incomes they simply stop earning high incomes and sock away their wealth in securities and shelters. This means it's not available for less-wealthy entrepreneurs to use in expanding businesses and creating new jobs, it's also not available to stimulate the market which drives the demand for new jobs.

There is no tax burden on wealthy people. They've already paid their taxes when they earned their wealth. We don't have a national wealth tax in America. We have an income tax. Taxing higher incomes is not taxing wealthy people. Mostly, it's taxing small businesses who file as individuals on their tax returns. So, not only are you creating a condition where less rich people money is available, you are also increasing the tax burden of the less-wealthy.

When you reduce the tax rates on the top marginal income earners and decrease the capital gains taxes, you create a positive cash flow which stimulates the market and increases the demand for new jobs. There is money available because you've lowered the cap gains tax and therefore, new jobs abound.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Stupid libtards.

 

[idb]

So, you're saying that wealthy people don't create millions and millions of beautiful jobs...and it's not true that the wealthier they are the more jobs they produce?
I thought that was the point of reducing the tax burden on wealthy people.

Well I guess you thought wrong. Jobs are created when the market demands require them. It's easier for them to be created when money is plentiful and abundant. Wealthy people have no need to create or do anything... that's one of the advantages of being wealthy. They don't need to earn incomes because they've already earned them. So whenever you tax high incomes they simply stop earning high incomes and sock away their wealth in securities and shelters. This means it's not available for less-wealthy entrepreneurs to use in expanding businesses and creating new jobs, it's also not available to stimulate the market which drives the demand for new jobs.

There is no tax burden on wealthy people. They've already paid their taxes when they earned their wealth. We don't have a national wealth tax in America. We have an income tax. Taxing higher incomes is not taxing wealthy people. Mostly, it's taxing small businesses who file as individuals on their tax returns. So, not only are you creating a condition where less rich people money is available, you are also increasing the tax burden of the less-wealthy.

When you reduce the tax rates on the top marginal income earners and decrease the capital gains taxes, you create a positive cash flow which stimulates the market and increases the demand for new jobs. There is money available because you've lowered the cap gains tax and therefore, new jobs abound.

Jobs are created when the market demands require them
Well, since you're saying that Supply Side Economics doesn't work wouldn't it be better if the wealth was more spread around so that it goes around and creates demand which in turn creates jobs?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You do better than that. You have made sure that the rich are very very rich and the rest of us are poor.

So how do you think more tax breaks for the rich are going to help the rest of us? Excessive breaks for them already caused the current situation.

Except they didn't. You must actually know absolutely nothing about economics. How about instead of US explaining how having more money to spend on employees and business expansion encourages said employment and expansion, YOU tell US how having less money will encourage any amount of expansion and hiring?

Even further beyond that, I wouldn't expect anyone but a brain dead Liberal to think Hillary is actually offering to tax her corporate masters who are paying her to implement these policies. The "rich" YOU are referring to aren't the same "rich" that end up being taxed by these new policies, but their competitors, which is exactly why the Democrats love spouting this "tax the rich" drivel that mindless drones see fit to echo, because Hillary's corporate masters don't even pay taxes.

Looks good on paper, but in practice, it has never worked the way you want. Businesses are doing great. Profit margins are better than ever. Business doesn't hire people or build new facilities just because the government gives them money. They do it because their market improves and they can sell more items.

You must have missed half of my post. Actually, make that both halves. Not only did you not bother to answer my question, but you ignored the part where I pointed out to you that it helps only the top percentage of business, and this type of tax system is designed to only damage their competitors.

The fact is that you can't answer my question, because in no way does taxing a business cause it to expand. Does taxing your paycheck earn you more money?

You also clearly didn't read my post, because you stupidly came to the conclusion that I was advocating corporate welfare, when I said absolutely nothing about GIVING them money. Businesses thrive in an economy where there is a demand for their services, they hire people and expand because of that demand which they have to supply. It's not a question of whether or not they hire people, THEY MUST HIRE PEOPLE, it's not a question of whether or not businesses pay their employees enough, THEY MUST PAY THEM ENOUGH. Every human being that buys anything does so with currency, that currency comes from somewhere, in the vast majority of cases that somewhere is a job. If people are not paid 'enough', the demand drops, and so does the need for it to be supplied, and thus the profit for the supplier drops. I shouldn't even have to explain this, but to summarize: Businesses don't need the government at all, whatsoever, businesses exist to supply a demand, and thus can support themselves, and to supply that demand they hire people at a reasonable wage.

I'm sure you've heard this one: "Most hiring is done by small businesses"
The funniest part is that your corporate masters told you this, and are pretending they'll help the smaller 99% of businesses, and you believe them. You're electing their servant, and letting them control the tax code through her.

Yet you Democrats actually have the audacity to pretend every free-thinker in America is stupid. The sheer irony of your every thought is funny in the saddest way possible.

Yes, giving them more tax breaks is giving them more money. If corporate profits weren't at all time highs, you might have a point about encouraging them to spend more money, but they are doing fine. They will not hire or enlarge their businesses until their sales are increased to the point that they need to. Giving them more free money won't help anyone but their main stock holders. The main stock holders are already doing just fine.

Giving them more free money


So you think we are giving them free money? How?

Name one instance the U.S. government is giving them a check?

 

[idb]

If I am a carpenter, the rich guy in my neighborhood is probably my best customer, he will order chairs from me while my poor neighbors will order nothing.

If the rich guy gets a break in his taxes, he might order an entire dining room set from me, and then I can feed my family.

I remember the yacht tax, which was a liberal idea to punish the rich for buying yachts. The rich took their business to yacht builders in other countries and shipped their yachts here, and then the American yacht companies all went out of business. Even the Democrats had to admit their stupidity and they repealed the yacht tax.

A lesson from the yacht tax

How many chairs can he use?
Wouldn't it be better for your business if more people could afford chairs?

 

[Wyatt earp]

So, you're saying that wealthy people don't create millions and millions of beautiful jobs...and it's not true that the wealthier they are the more jobs they produce?
I thought that was the point of reducing the tax burden on wealthy people.

Well I guess you thought wrong. Jobs are created when the market demands require them. It's easier for them to be created when money is plentiful and abundant. Wealthy people have no need to create or do anything... that's one of the advantages of being wealthy. They don't need to earn incomes because they've already earned them. So whenever you tax high incomes they simply stop earning high incomes and sock away their wealth in securities and shelters. This means it's not available for less-wealthy entrepreneurs to use in expanding businesses and creating new jobs, it's also not available to stimulate the market which drives the demand for new jobs.

There is no tax burden on wealthy people. They've already paid their taxes when they earned their wealth. We don't have a national wealth tax in America. We have an income tax. Taxing higher incomes is not taxing wealthy people. Mostly, it's taxing small businesses who file as individuals on their tax returns. So, not only are you creating a condition where less rich people money is available, you are also increasing the tax burden of the less-wealthy.

When you reduce the tax rates on the top marginal income earners and decrease the capital gains taxes, you create a positive cash flow which stimulates the market and increases the demand for new jobs. There is money available because you've lowered the cap gains tax and therefore, new jobs abound.

Jobs are created when the market demands require them
Well, since you're saying that Supply Side Economics doesn't work wouldn't it be better if the wealth was more spread around so that it goes around and creates demand which in turn creates jobs?

How would we do that?

 

[BULLDOG]

If I am a carpenter, the rich guy in my neighborhood is probably my best customer, he will order chairs from me while my poor neighbors will order nothing.

If the rich guy gets a break in his taxes, he might order an entire dining room set from me, and then I can feed my family.

I remember the yacht tax, which was a liberal idea to punish the rich for buying yachts. The rich took their business to yacht builders in other countries and shipped their yachts here, and then the American yacht companies all went out of business. Even the Democrats had to admit their stupidity and they repealed the yacht tax.

A lesson from the yacht tax

You said you were a lawyer. Why do you lie about what you do?

 

[idb]

So, you're saying that wealthy people don't create millions and millions of beautiful jobs...and it's not true that the wealthier they are the more jobs they produce?
I thought that was the point of reducing the tax burden on wealthy people.

Well I guess you thought wrong. Jobs are created when the market demands require them. It's easier for them to be created when money is plentiful and abundant. Wealthy people have no need to create or do anything... that's one of the advantages of being wealthy. They don't need to earn incomes because they've already earned them. So whenever you tax high incomes they simply stop earning high incomes and sock away their wealth in securities and shelters. This means it's not available for less-wealthy entrepreneurs to use in expanding businesses and creating new jobs, it's also not available to stimulate the market which drives the demand for new jobs.

There is no tax burden on wealthy people. They've already paid their taxes when they earned their wealth. We don't have a national wealth tax in America. We have an income tax. Taxing higher incomes is not taxing wealthy people. Mostly, it's taxing small businesses who file as individuals on their tax returns. So, not only are you creating a condition where less rich people money is available, you are also increasing the tax burden of the less-wealthy.

When you reduce the tax rates on the top marginal income earners and decrease the capital gains taxes, you create a positive cash flow which stimulates the market and increases the demand for new jobs. There is money available because you've lowered the cap gains tax and therefore, new jobs abound.

Jobs are created when the market demands require them
Well, since you're saying that Supply Side Economics doesn't work wouldn't it be better if the wealth was more spread around so that it goes around and creates demand which in turn creates jobs?

How would we do that?

I dunno.
Just as a starting point should we agree it's a good idea in theory though?
Then we could brainstorm on how it could be done!

 

[Oldstyle]

So, you're saying that wealthy people don't create millions and millions of beautiful jobs...and it's not true that the wealthier they are the more jobs they produce?
I thought that was the point of reducing the tax burden on wealthy people.

Well I guess you thought wrong. Jobs are created when the market demands require them. It's easier for them to be created when money is plentiful and abundant. Wealthy people have no need to create or do anything... that's one of the advantages of being wealthy. They don't need to earn incomes because they've already earned them. So whenever you tax high incomes they simply stop earning high incomes and sock away their wealth in securities and shelters. This means it's not available for less-wealthy entrepreneurs to use in expanding businesses and creating new jobs, it's also not available to stimulate the market which drives the demand for new jobs.

There is no tax burden on wealthy people. They've already paid their taxes when they earned their wealth. We don't have a national wealth tax in America. We have an income tax. Taxing higher incomes is not taxing wealthy people. Mostly, it's taxing small businesses who file as individuals on their tax returns. So, not only are you creating a condition where less rich people money is available, you are also increasing the tax burden of the less-wealthy.

When you reduce the tax rates on the top marginal income earners and decrease the capital gains taxes, you create a positive cash flow which stimulates the market and increases the demand for new jobs. There is money available because you've lowered the cap gains tax and therefore, new jobs abound.

Oh my god! Someone that actually took economics in school! The progressives on this board HATE people like you, Boss! They don't want to deal with reality...they want to deal in "concepts". Taxing the rich is a concept that sounds SO good to them that they can't seem to get it through their heads that the reason most rich people HAVE that money is that they are really good at preserving it! You're spot on in your description of what happens when idiots raise taxes on profits. If you take the incentive to risk capital out of investments by raising the taxes on profits then the people who have capital will simply put in in a tax free bond or some other tax shelter and wait for the inevitable economic nosedive that accompanies such idiotic fiscal policy. Rich people are not going to HAND YOU their money! I'm sorry but that's a pipe dream.

 

[Oldstyle]

If I am a carpenter, the rich guy in my neighborhood is probably my best customer, he will order chairs from me while my poor neighbors will order nothing.

If the rich guy gets a break in his taxes, he might order an entire dining room set from me, and then I can feed my family.

I remember the yacht tax, which was a liberal idea to punish the rich for buying yachts. The rich took their business to yacht builders in other countries and shipped their yachts here, and then the American yacht companies all went out of business. Even the Democrats had to admit their stupidity and they repealed the yacht tax.

A lesson from the yacht tax

You said you were a lawyer. Why do you lie about what you do?

It's an example you buffoon!

 

[Indeependent]

If I am a carpenter, the rich guy in my neighborhood is probably my best customer, he will order chairs from me while my poor neighbors will order nothing.

If the rich guy gets a break in his taxes, he might order an entire dining room set from me, and then I can feed my family.

I remember the yacht tax, which was a liberal idea to punish the rich for buying yachts. The rich took their business to yacht builders in other countries and shipped their yachts here, and then the American yacht companies all went out of business. Even the Democrats had to admit their stupidity and they repealed the yacht tax.

A lesson from the yacht tax

You said you were a lawyer. Why do you lie about what you do?

It's an example you buffoon!

You are looking to BULLDOG for logic?

 

[Wyatt earp]

So, you're saying that wealthy people don't create millions and millions of beautiful jobs...and it's not true that the wealthier they are the more jobs they produce?
I thought that was the point of reducing the tax burden on wealthy people.

Well I guess you thought wrong. Jobs are created when the market demands require them. It's easier for them to be created when money is plentiful and abundant. Wealthy people have no need to create or do anything... that's one of the advantages of being wealthy. They don't need to earn incomes because they've already earned them. So whenever you tax high incomes they simply stop earning high incomes and sock away their wealth in securities and shelters. This means it's not available for less-wealthy entrepreneurs to use in expanding businesses and creating new jobs, it's also not available to stimulate the market which drives the demand for new jobs.

There is no tax burden on wealthy people. They've already paid their taxes when they earned their wealth. We don't have a national wealth tax in America. We have an income tax. Taxing higher incomes is not taxing wealthy people. Mostly, it's taxing small businesses who file as individuals on their tax returns. So, not only are you creating a condition where less rich people money is available, you are also increasing the tax burden of the less-wealthy.

When you reduce the tax rates on the top marginal income earners and decrease the capital gains taxes, you create a positive cash flow which stimulates the market and increases the demand for new jobs. There is money available because you've lowered the cap gains tax and therefore, new jobs abound.

Jobs are created when the market demands require them
Well, since you're saying that Supply Side Economics doesn't work wouldn't it be better if the wealth was more spread around so that it goes around and creates demand which in turn creates jobs?

How would we do that?

I dunno.
Just as a starting point should we agree it's a good idea in theory though?
Then we could brainstorm on how it could be done!

I think people has for ages , all I can figure out is either 3 basic things either kings/dictators get all the money or government gets all the money or in our case entrepreneurs get all the money.

 

[BULLDOG]

If I am a carpenter, the rich guy in my neighborhood is probably my best customer, he will order chairs from me while my poor neighbors will order nothing.

If the rich guy gets a break in his taxes, he might order an entire dining room set from me, and then I can feed my family.

I remember the yacht tax, which was a liberal idea to punish the rich for buying yachts. The rich took their business to yacht builders in other countries and shipped their yachts here, and then the American yacht companies all went out of business. Even the Democrats had to admit their stupidity and they repealed the yacht tax.

A lesson from the yacht tax

You said you were a lawyer. Why do you lie about what you do?

It's an example you buffoon!

It's a lie you liar.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If I am a carpenter, the rich guy in my neighborhood is probably my best customer, he will order chairs from me while my poor neighbors will order nothing.

If the rich guy gets a break in his taxes, he might order an entire dining room set from me, and then I can feed my family.

I remember the yacht tax, which was a liberal idea to punish the rich for buying yachts. The rich took their business to yacht builders in other countries and shipped their yachts here, and then the American yacht companies all went out of business. Even the Democrats had to admit their stupidity and they repealed the yacht tax.

A lesson from the yacht tax

You said you were a lawyer. Why do you lie about what you do?

It's an example you buffoon!

It's a lie you liar.

He gave you an example, Why are you calling him a liar?

 

[Oldstyle]

So, you're saying that wealthy people don't create millions and millions of beautiful jobs...and it's not true that the wealthier they are the more jobs they produce?
I thought that was the point of reducing the tax burden on wealthy people.

Well I guess you thought wrong. Jobs are created when the market demands require them. It's easier for them to be created when money is plentiful and abundant. Wealthy people have no need to create or do anything... that's one of the advantages of being wealthy. They don't need to earn incomes because they've already earned them. So whenever you tax high incomes they simply stop earning high incomes and sock away their wealth in securities and shelters. This means it's not available for less-wealthy entrepreneurs to use in expanding businesses and creating new jobs, it's also not available to stimulate the market which drives the demand for new jobs.

There is no tax burden on wealthy people. They've already paid their taxes when they earned their wealth. We don't have a national wealth tax in America. We have an income tax. Taxing higher incomes is not taxing wealthy people. Mostly, it's taxing small businesses who file as individuals on their tax returns. So, not only are you creating a condition where less rich people money is available, you are also increasing the tax burden of the less-wealthy.

When you reduce the tax rates on the top marginal income earners and decrease the capital gains taxes, you create a positive cash flow which stimulates the market and increases the demand for new jobs. There is money available because you've lowered the cap gains tax and therefore, new jobs abound.

Jobs are created when the market demands require them
Well, since you're saying that Supply Side Economics doesn't work wouldn't it be better if the wealth was more spread around so that it goes around and creates demand which in turn creates jobs?

It's scary how little understanding some of you people have about what creates jobs! Let me try to explain it to you once again. New businesses are created or existing ones are expanded because someone sees the potential to make a profit. Demand, while part of the equation does not in and of itself create jobs! There would be huge demand for a Corvette that sold for ten thousand dollars. They'd sell like hot cakes! So why doesn't Chevy sell their Corvettes for that amount and take advantage of such a huge demand? It's obvious...they would lose money because there is no profit to be made selling a Corvette for that amount.

Jobs are created when people with capital see an opportunity to take in a large enough profit creating a product or providing a service that it makes sense for them to risk said capital. When you raise taxes on profits...you dampen the expectations of making a profit and make taking the risk less inviting.