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

[Boss]

Perhaps I should have said keep more of our money.

Our money? Why do you think you're entitled to someone else's wealth? It's not your money, it's their money.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

So, why not encourage the money towards investment in job-creating businesses rather than in purely money-making instruments where no jobs are created?

With all due respect, IDB...the stock market DOES encourage capital to be used in job creation!

OK, I'll grant you that...using 'stocks' was a poor choice on my part.
The point I was trying to make was that having money working in investment instruments that do nothing but make more money is of no advantage to anyone but the owner of the capital - and certainly doesn't create the downstream benefits that entrepreneurial investment does.

Do you understand that you're not going to encourage investment of capital by increasing the taxes that one pays on profits, IDB? That's basic economics yet somehow that's the formula that progressives keep pushing I guess because they see profit taking as something that is evil and needs to be taxed to death. Their answer is to attempt to seize capital from the wealthy by taxing profits and then redistributing it to the poor through government a concept which is doomed for failure because the wealthy are not going to allow their capital to be taken from them without a fight. If you try to do so then they ARE going to shelter it in tax free investments, make a smaller return but with zero risk and they're going to wait your fiscal policies out. It won't affect the rich much at all. The people that WILL be affected are the middle and lower classes because without investment of capital you're not going to see job creation!

 

[Boss]

Their answer is to attempt to seize capital from the wealthy by taxing profits and then redistributing it to the poor through government a concept which is doomed for failure because the wealthy are not going to allow their capital to be taken from them without a fight.

It's not that there is a fight... a progressive loves a good fight on moral principles. It's that a wealthy capitalist is FAR FAR smarter than any progressive. There is no need for a fight. Some crony corporatist type capitalists (think George Soros) will play the system to buy loopholes where they are exempted from this profit grab. Their companies will be the chosen winners and they will ultimately amass MORE wealth. Others will cut their losses, relocate to some other country where they can keep their earnings or downsize and streamline so their profits are very small and fall under the limits put forth by the progressive. So the profits they seek to grab are gone before they can ever get to them. In the process, they've killed millions of jobs, put millions more into poverty, eliminated any kind of economic growth or prosperity and choked free market capitalism to death.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

You clearly have no grasp what Ricardian economics entails.

Off shoring to China is the heart of Ricardian theory.

____________

Ricardian Model of Trade - International Political Economy

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Well I guess you thought wrong. Jobs are created when the market demands require them.

So, in 2003 jobs designing the iPhone were created because of the intense demand for the device?

In 2009, the same was true for the iPad?

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.

So generally, a wealthy person who owns stock or a majority share of a business venture will pull out their personal checkbook and write a check for expenses?

I suppose that is a lot easier than developing a business plan, forecasting the return on capital investment through adjusted margins and constructing a capital budget.

On the other hand, the rich person who does this won't be rich for long.

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.

We also have business taxes,. corporate income taxes (the highest in the world) and Capital Gains taxes to hit the returns on investment.

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.

I'm not sure what point you are attempting make, since you are mixing apples and hot air balloons. We tax higher incomes and use a Marxian graduated tax to tax those are a higher percentage than we tax lower incomes. As is always the case with confiscatory schemes. corruption enters the equation. Our tax code is and has been for sale to the highest bidder. That said, to claim that the burden on less wealthy is higher is patently absurd, and frankly ignorant.

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.

I assume you are trying to apply Keynesian stimulus to reduced taxes. It doesn't work and exposes your lack of grasp of macro economic theory.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

It must be a good thing to have the money in circulation creating work though - rather than locked away in a bank or in stocks...don't you think?

The way to get that money OUT is NOT to penalize Risk Investment and raise the Cap Gains or Corporate taxes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary wants us to become more like Venezuela, rich in resources but absolutely bankrupt and destitute

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

The person who denies the role of supply in the creation of demand is either ignorant or dishonest - perhaps both.

supply creates its own demand. - Says Law

Keynesians will begin foaming at the mouth in

5

4

3

2

1

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think trickle down can, given the right circumstances, work. I do not see right now as being imbued with those circumstances.

That you use the term "trickle down" simply illustrates that economics is yet another subject to which you are abysmally lacking in knowledge.

 

[TooTall]

I don't know if anyone remembers this, but..................

Remember when Jr. first decided to cut taxes for the wealthy? There was some doubt about it, and that is why the tax cuts were to be tried out for only 10 years.

Well.................the 10 year time limit came, and they decided to extend them, even though it had been proven that tax cuts for the wealthy did nothing to help the economy.

I say return to the Clinton era tax code.

Bush cut taxes on ALL taxpayers, and wealth is not taxed, income is. Why didn't Obama insist on raising taxes back to pre-Bush levels on ALL taxpayers?

 

[Boss]

So, in 2003 jobs designing the iPhone were created because of the intense demand for the device?

In 2009, the same was true for the iPad?

No... Sometimes, jobs are created out of a free enterprise entrepreneur's speculations of a vision. Another great example would be Henry Ford. It's a great argument for why we should embrace policies which free up venture capital controlled by the wealthy. Imagine if Steve Jobs had been unable to get the capital to put his invention into production?

The reason I stated that jobs are created when the market demands them is because, generally speaking, that is true. For every Steve Jobs there are a thousand inventors who's ideas failed.

So generally, a wealthy person who owns stock or a majority share of a business venture will pull out their personal checkbook and write a check for expenses?

What is the problem with liberals today, contorting everything I say into some warped little pretzel and spewing it back in my face? I didn't say that. If they own stock, they've already pulled out their checkbook.

We also have business taxes,. corporate income taxes (the highest in the world) and Capital Gains taxes to hit the returns on investment.

Right... And whenever you raise ANY of those taxes you'll get less of the behavior you're taxing! A super-wealthy person can simply put their wealth into tax-free municipals where you can't touch it. They don't get much of a return but that's okay, they're rich... they don't need it. Now you're not ever going to start taxing municipal bonds or you'll have a nation full of dilapidated cities with crumbling infrastructures to contend with. And all that rich people money will be safe in a Swiss bank account, far from your grubby little hands.

I'm not sure what point you are attempting make, since you are mixing apples and hot air balloons. We tax higher incomes and use a Marxian graduated tax to tax those are a higher percentage than we tax lower incomes. As is always the case with confiscatory schemes. corruption enters the equation. Our tax code is and has been for sale to the highest bidder. That said, to claim that the burden on less wealthy is higher is patently absurd, and frankly ignorant.

Well, I thought my point was very simple. Wealthy people have no need to earn incomes. The top marginal income earners are generally not the super-wealthy. They're trying to get there... running their small businesses and striving to acquire wealth. So you're not "taxing the rich" when you raise the top marginal income tax rates, you're taxing small businesses for the most part, and those who are trying to become rich.

And yes... I agree, there is corruption and collusion all in our tax codes and throughout our government in it's massive bureaucratic regulations and red tape. That's why I constantly tell Millennials who get all worked up about Walmart and Big Corporations... you're barking at the wrong enemy. The free market system takes care of the greedy capitalist... there's no such thing as "too big to fail" ...it's the Big Government you should be barking at.... THAT is the problem, not the capitalists.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"Give the rich more money and they will create jobs."

We have seen the income and wealth at the top skyrocket in the last few decades.

If that old canard was true we should be up to our ears in jobs.

We should also be up to our ears in jobs by giving obama 13 trillion Fucking dollars to spend.

That fuck head is the worse spender of money in the history of the United States of America any one here get any of it?


.

 

[Boss]

I assume you are trying to apply Keynesian stimulus to reduced taxes. It doesn't work and exposes your lack of grasp of macro economic theory.

I don't know know why you think I'd try to apply Keynesian anything to anything... Keynes was an idiot in my opinion. I'm always in favor of lower taxes... always. I'd love to repeal the 16th Amendment and convert to a consumption tax to pay for government. But the bottom line is, the situation is going to take care of itself eventually... we cannot continue to sustain trillion-dollar deficits year after year. Sooner or later, it all comes crashing down.

 

[Indeependent]

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

You clearly have no grasp what Ricardian economics entails.

Off shoring to China is the heart of Ricardian theory.

____________

Ricardian Model of Trade - International Political Economy

Not for what they pay their workers.
And the US is NOT competitive in the relationship.
What do we do for China excert eliminate our workforce.
Try better.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No... Sometimes, jobs are created out of a free enterprise entrepreneur's speculations of a vision. Another great example would be Henry Ford. It's a great argument for why we should embrace policies which free up venture capital controlled by the wealthy. Imagine if Steve Jobs had been unable to get the capital to put his invention into production?

The economic principle is that supply creates demand. In the case of the iPhone, it was the supply that showed America WHY they wanted one. There was zero demand prior to this. HP invented the iPaq in the late 90's and couldn't give the damned things away, Apple had to steal it and claim to invent it before anyone cared/

Two things to note, HP created supply that did NOT result in demand, and that perception rather than technology is what created the demand.

The reason I stated that jobs are created when the market demands them is because, generally speaking, that is true. For every Steve Jobs there are a thousand inventors who's ideas failed.

It's interesting to note that Jobs never invented anything. Jobs was a master of marketing. Virtually everything Apple has ever sold was technology that cme from others, that Apple claimed to be their own. From the famous mouse/GUI that they stole for Xerox, then had the nerve to sue Microsoft over, only to end up paying royalties to Xerox. to the iPod they ripped off from Creative. But again Creative could never market it.

What is the problem with liberals today, contorting everything I say into some warped little pretzel and spewing it back in my face? I didn't say that. If they own stock, they've already pulled out their checkbook.

Then the process of creating a capital budget would be absolutely no different than for a smaller business, simply on a different scale. My point is that your claim was entirely absurd. Regardless of size, a capital budget must be prepared that details the ROCE prior to committing capital.

Right... And whenever you raise ANY of those taxes you'll get less of the behavior you're taxing! A super-wealthy person can simply put their wealth into tax-free municipals where you can't touch it. They don't get much of a return but that's okay, they're rich... they don't need it. Now you're not ever going to start taxing municipal bonds or you'll have a nation full of dilapidated cities with crumbling infrastructures to contend with. And all that rich people money will be safe in a Swiss bank account, far from your grubby little hands.

You are again confused;

{
Municipal Bonds can be Subject to Capital Gains Tax
When buying muni bonds on the secondary market, investors must be aware that bonds purchased at a discount (less than par value), will be taxed upon redemption at the capital gains rate. Note that this tax does not apply to the coupon payments, but only the principal of the bond.

For example:
The table below shows three different bonds, all maturing in two years and all of which give the buyer a return of 4% if purchased at their net present value price.


Read more: Avoid Tricky Tax Issues On Municipal Bonds | Investopedia Avoid Tricky Tax Issues On Municipal Bonds
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook}

Well, I thought my point was very simple. Wealthy people have no need to earn incomes.

Apparently most of them disagree with you, since even Warren Buffet is pulling in an income from investments.

The top marginal income earners are generally not the super-wealthy. They're trying to get there... running their small businesses and striving to acquire wealth. So you're not "taxing the rich" when you raise the top marginal income tax rates, you're taxing small businesses for the most part, and those who are trying to become rich.

Income taxes are designed to put a boot to the face of those climbing the ladder of success. If that is the point you're trying to make, I agree.

And yes... I agree, there is corruption and collusion all in our tax codes and throughout our government in it's massive bureaucratic regulations and red tape. That's why I constantly tell Millennials who get all worked up about Walmart and Big Corporations... you're barking at the wrong enemy. The free market system takes care of the greedy capitalist... there's no such thing as "too big to fail" ...it's the Big Government you should be barking at.... THAT is the problem, not the capitalists.

My doctorate is in supply and production chain management, Sam Walton created supply chain management, it simply did not exist as a discipline prior to him. He is one of the preeminent geniuses of out era.Steve Jobs was a glorified huckster, he could stir up a crowd, but never created anything, not even new concepts or processes.

Sam Walton though, he revolutionized the world. Business school staples such as upstream and downsteam flow, available to promise, dock to stock,. these are all concepts that arose because of the vision of Walton to view the entire supply chain in a holistic manner, and manage every aspect of it. Supplier score cards are a Walton invention.

You are unlikely to hear negative statements regarding Walmart from me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't know know why you think I'd try to apply Keynesian anything to anything... Keynes was an idiot in my opinion. I'm always in favor of lower taxes... always. I'd love to repeal the 16th Amendment and convert to a consumption tax to pay for government. But the bottom line is, the situation is going to take care of itself eventually... we cannot continue to sustain trillion-dollar deficits year after year. Sooner or later, it all comes crashing down.

The way you phrased your post made it appear that you were touting the stimulus benefits of tax cuts.

I agree on consumption taxes, BTW.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Not for what they pay their workers.
And the US is NOT competitive in the relationship.
What do we do for China excert eliminate our workforce.
Try better.

You're missing the point. You brought up Ricardian trade as a superior alternative to supply side. First, this supposes that the concepts are contradictory, which they are not. But it was clear that you did not fully grasp what the contribution of David Ricardo was. He expanded on the absolute advantage theories of Smith, and created comparative advantage. He was NOT wrong, wealth in general is increased when each nation produces that which provides the greatest return, even if that is not the most efficient production for the country.

Ricardo advocated off shoring as the ONLY sane model of international trade. Under Ricardian trade, to NOT outsource labor intensive manufacturing to China and other third world nations retards the wealth production of the USA.

There are flaws in the Ricardian model that Friedman illustrated, such as the concept that unless all idle production capacity is utilized by other processes, then there is no comparative advantage to outsourcing to off shore concerns.

As a Rothbardian, I do not have a favorable view of Ricardian trade.

 

[Boss]

It's interesting to note that Jobs never invented anything. Jobs was a master of marketing.

Good for him! I don't really care to be honest. Sometimes, wealth is earned by what's between your ears. That's the beauty of a free market capitalist system. There are all kinds of examples of success off ideas that others said would never work or even ideas that previously failed. Sometimes it's a matter of timing or presentation. Mostly, it comes from diligence and vision, being willing to take risks and fail. Most successful people failed previously numerous times. There is no guarantee of success and those who make it are determined to make it.

Then the process of creating a capital budget would be absolutely no different than for a smaller business, simply on a different scale. My point is that your claim was entirely absurd. Regardless of size, a capital budget must be prepared that details the ROCE prior to committing capital.

What point do you think was absurd? Some point I never made that you imagined into what I said? You asked if capital investors wrote the checks for the expenses... yes... when they bought the stocks that's what they did! The stockholders select a board of directors who hire CEOs and CFOs and they set budgets and report to the board. A small business doesn't have a board of directors, they present a business plan to a potential investor and the investor makes a decision on the strength of the presentation. I never argued that investors just hand over their money to anyone who comes along... that's what is absurd.

You are again confused;
Municipal Bonds can be Subject to Capital Gains Tax

Well no, I am not confused. MBs CAN BE subject to cap gains when the money is received. OR... the investor can rollover their investment into any number of other tax-exempt securities. There are always plenty of options, they don't have to ever touch their wealth. To whatever extent they do, they can pay little or no taxes depending on the circumstances. The point is, you're never going to be able to confiscate wealthy people's wealth. They are too smart for that nonsense. They will always be two or three steps ahead of you on that.

Apparently most of them disagree with you, since even Warren Buffet is pulling in an income from investments.

*Sigh* Income from investments is not subject to earned income tax rates. It's NOT wages and salaries... that's what you are raising the rates on when you increase the top marginal income tax rates. Buffet and other billionaires do not earn wages subject to earned income tax. They pay tax on investments through capital gains tax rates. Now you can raise the cap gains tax rate but then, you are going to effectively kill capital investments. Wealthy people don't HAVE to invest... they can sink their money into securities and tax-exempt trusts where you'll never see it again. Or they can ship it off to the Cayman Islands or Belize, where you have no jurisdiction to tax a damn thing. Like I said, they are always two... three steps ahead of you on this.

Income taxes are designed to put a boot to the face of those climbing the ladder of success. If that is the point you're trying to make, I agree.

Well no,... Income tax was designed to pay the expense incurred by government. Through the years, progressives and crony corporatists have manipulated the tax code to effectively punish those who are trying to become wealthy. This emotive idea that you are going to "punish the rich" by jacking up the income tax rates at the top is ludicrous. It does nothing of the sort and it actually helps the corporatists you hate so much.

My doctorate is in supply and production chain management, Sam Walton created supply chain management, it simply did not exist as a discipline prior to him. He is one of the preeminent geniuses of out era.Steve Jobs was a glorified huckster, he could stir up a crowd, but never created anything, not even new concepts or processes.

Sam Walton though, he revolutionized the world. Business school staples such as upstream and downsteam flow, available to promise, dock to stock,. these are all concepts that arose because of the vision of Walton to view the entire supply chain in a holistic manner, and manage every aspect of it. Supplier score cards are a Walton invention.

You are unlikely to hear negative statements regarding Walmart from me.

Great, we find ourselves on the same page! I agree, Walmart has been a tremendous benefit to the poor... in two ways... by providing millions of jobs that would otherwise not exist and by providing cheap products poor people can afford. We hear all this nonsense about their workers being on welfare but it's just not factual. The average entry-level Walmart employee makes $18 an hour. Hard working and loyal, dependable employees quickly rise to department heads, assistant managers and store managers. Walton rejected the usage of the word "employee" in favor of "associate" because he felt they were vital to the operation.

But let's just pretend the detractors complaints are true... Free market capitalism mitigates such greed. If there is a company exploiting people and not paying them fairly, people leave and go to work elsewhere. Other less-greedy capitalists come along and offer better pay and conditions... and boom... the greedy capitalist goes down. UNLESS... Big Government steps in to bail them out because they're too big to fail. The "enemy" is not capitalism, it's Big Government! Free market capitalism is self-cleaning... you're never too big to fail.

 

[Boss]

The way you phrased your post made it appear that you were touting the stimulus benefits of tax cuts.

I agree on consumption taxes, BTW.

Well there are always stimulus benefits to tax cuts because you're leaving money in the hands of consumers who will spend it. The problem is, some people don't understand how all of this works in the larger macro-economic picture. A tax cut to the middle and lower level income persons, to what little extent they actually PAY taxes, has little effect... the money is spent quickly and has a short-term stimulating effect that goes away quickly. On the other hand, tax cuts at the top generate more economic growth because small businesses tend to reinvest in their operations. They may expand or purchase new equipment. They may hire new employees. All of this will ultimately result in MORE tax revenues in the end.

Reagan's tax cuts recognized this. He cut the top marginal rates dramatically and expanded the base. This resulted in an enormous economic prosperity that lasted into Clinton's term. Bush's tax cuts, subsequently had very little effect because he applied the cuts to everyone and didn't expand the base but reduced it. The result was less revenue because the cuts were spread across the spectrum and effectively cancelled each other out.

 

[Cellblock2429]

You also need to admit that she is right about the vital importance of strengthening the middle class. Consumer spending is the key to economic growth - not the hope that more investment is on the horizon if you cut the taxes on the top 1%.

Giving tax breaks to the top earners and corporations has been proven time and time again to be a poor stimulator of economic growth. Sure the idea sounds rational on paper, but put into practice it's a failure. Why? Because these top earners just keep the money they save rather than invest it. Investing is no longer a priority for them if they are already richer now than ever before. Corporate profits are also at an all time high. Moreover, more investment in supply is pointless if there isn't a level of demand to match it.

Bush's tax cuts for instance were deficit-creating nightmares. Job growth under Bush was pathetic and we had a Great Recession begin on his watch.

Kansas cut taxes on top earners and the state now has a huge deficit and a recession.

Geepers, you'd think the DemocRATS would have fixed this by now. What's Obama been doing for the last 8 years besides golfing?