Can A Republican Tell Me When Trickle Down Economics Worked?

[Woodznutz]

Yes I have been hired by a poor person. Money was great!
You do know that trickle down economics is how you get peons?

Peon pay is entry level pay, but few remain there (been there, done that).

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Call it what you want but trickle down is the way it works.
Always has and always will be.
The idea is to work harder and get more of that trickle down money.

 

[Woodznutz]

Most business tax breaks only occur after profits are reinvested in maintenance or growth. Corporate profits taxes are so high that it would be irresponsible for companies to actually pay them.

 

[IM2]

Call it what you want but trickle down is the way it works.
Always has and always will be.
The idea is to work harder and get more of that trickle down money.

Actually, it doesn't work that way. Customers come to your business and demand creates the money you need to hire employees and to give them decent pay, benefits and raises.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, it doesn't work that way. Customers come to your business and demand creates the money you need to hire employees and to give them decent pay, benefits and raises.

How's Biden's demand side economics working?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Actually, it doesn't work that way. Customers come to your business and demand creates the money you need to hire employees and to give them decent pay, benefits and raises.

You're free to work somewhere else if you feel you aren't getting what you think your worth.

 

[IM2]

You're free to work somewhere else if you feel you aren't getting what you think your worth.

Since I built a business, I think I know how things go. Giving tax breaks to the rich did not create jobs. It increased wealth inequality.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Since I built a business, I think I know how things go. Giving tax breaks to the rich did not create jobs. It increased wealth inequality.

Sure you did...

 

[Winston]

{ The regressive nature of the American tax system today, particularly as it affects wealthy elites, }



SO the author is not only dishonest, but abjectly ignorant.

{ A regressive tax is a tax applied uniformly, taking a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners. It is in opposition to a progressive tax, which takes a larger percentage from high-income earners. }

Okay, so the dude is a fucking liar pushing his socialist agenda in direct contradiction to facts.

That defines most of what the left vomits out.

{ the theory that undergirds this phenomenon, dubbed “trickle-down economics” by its myriad critics, is a macroeconomic fallacy. }

Wait, so those who use the term are actually engaged in ad hominem attacks?

Well, DAYUM.

{ The results of this so-called Reaganomics platform were mixed, as these laissez-faire policies overcame the existing recession but caused the national debt to skyrocket from under $1 trillion in 1981 to roughly $2.9 trillion by 1989. }

Unless of course it was actually defense spending that increased..

But I'm not here to debate some leftist rag. If Matthew Lichtblau wants to join the forum, I'll be happy to take him to the woodshed as the disingenuous fool he is.

So you ran to google, but in no way supported your claims.

Want to try again?

I believe you need to try again. Yes, the tax system in the United States is regressive in the sense that the ultra-wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the moderately wealthy, and in some cases, even the middle class. John Kerry and Mitt Romney consistently have paid a lower percentage of their income in taxes than say, Biden or Obama. While Obama and Biden might be millionaires, both Kerry and Romney are worth more than a "unit". Of course, you don't know how much a "unit" is, which reveals how uneducated you are concerning this issue.

And yes, trickle down is based on a Macroeconomic fallacy called "supply side". Supply side is based on Say's Law, which simply put means, "supply creates its own demand". Consumption plus investment equals aggregate demand, or so the theory holds. Here is a great explanation as to why that is not always true,

The fallacy of Say’s Law is revealed by Keynes’s division of aggregate demand into investment and consumption for purposes of income analysis (Y = C + I). Keynes points out that the factors which determine consumption are quite different from the factors determining investment but together they constitute the aggregate demand and determine the level of income. Consumption is a function of current income, but it does not increase as much as the increase in income.

Investment, on the other hand, depends upon technological developments and the marginal efficiency of capital. It is, therefore, clear that the determinants of consumption and the determinants of investments are not interconnected in such a way as to ensure adequate aggregate demand.

11 Criticisms Against the Say’s Law of Market

Read this article to discover the eleven major criticisms against the Say’s Law of market. 1. Possibilities of Deficiency of Effective Demand: It is assumed in Say's Law that whatever is earned is spent either on consumption goods or on investment goods, thus, income is automatically spent at a...

www.economicsdiscussion.net

The problem here is "savings". Savings are not investments, a clear example is the stock market. When you purchase a stock on the exchange you are not investing, you are saving. You are purchasing a certificate that you plan to sell, in the future, at a profit. No company is getting any capital to invest. Now, if you buy a lawnmower, trailer, and pick-up to start a lawn mowing business, you are investing. Investing can create demand, but savings can stifle demand. So, aggregate demand is equal to Consumption plus investment MINUS savings. That savings is the fallacy in "trickle down" economics. And that savings has led to the obscene expansion in the wealth held by the ultra-wealthy. It is locked up in paper wealth, stocks, treasuries, hell, even art and baseball cards.

 

[Winston]

How's Biden's demand side economics working?

What is driving this economy, and inflation too? It is demand, why have not all those supply side tax cuts initiated by Trump not taken care of that? We can attack inflation by facilitating supply side efficiencies and decreasing demand by, wait for it, tax increases.

 

[Oldestyle]

What is driving this economy, and inflation too? It is demand, why have not all those supply side tax cuts initiated by Trump not taken care of that? We can attack inflation by facilitating supply side efficiencies and decreasing demand by, wait for it, tax increases.

With all due respect, Winston...if you think you can increase supply by increasing taxes...you're sorely delusional!

 

[Winston]

With all due respect, Winston...if you think you can increase supply by increasing taxes...you're sorely delusional!

No, you reduce demand by increasing taxes, like Ronald Reagan did.

 

[Oldestyle]

No, you reduce demand by increasing taxes, like Ronald Reagan did.

Seriously? Reagan was a net tax cutter, Winston! Where are you getting your information from?

 

[Oldestyle]

No, you reduce demand by increasing taxes, like Ronald Reagan did.

You don't seem to understand what Supply Side Economics is, Winston.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is driving this economy, and inflation too? It is demand, why have not all those supply side tax cuts initiated by Trump not taken care of that? We can attack inflation by facilitating supply side efficiencies and decreasing demand by, wait for it, tax increases.

What is driving this economy, and inflation too? It is demand,

So, not working that well?

why have not all those supply side tax cuts initiated by Trump not taken care of that?

Taken care of Biden's incompetence? Why would it?

We can attack inflation by facilitating supply side efficiencies and decreasing demand by, wait for it, tax increases.

Biden should definitely promote tax hikes before the midterms.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

With all due respect, Winston...if you think you can increase supply by increasing taxes...you're sorely delusional!

No, he's increasing efficiency by raising taxes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Seriously? Reagan was a net tax cutter, Winston! Where are you getting your information from?

When Reagan cut the top rate from 70% to 28%, he starved the government of so much revenue
that it was just like a tax hike. / liberal talking point off

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe you need to try again. Yes, the tax system in the United States is regressive in the sense that the ultra-wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the moderately wealthy, and in some cases, even the middle class. John Kerry and Mitt Romney consistently have paid a lower percentage of their income in taxes than say, Biden or Obama. While Obama and Biden might be millionaires, both Kerry and Romney are worth more than a "unit". Of course, you don't know how much a "unit" is, which reveals how uneducated you are concerning this issue.

And yes, trickle down is based on a Macroeconomic fallacy called "supply side". Supply side is based on Say's Law, which simply put means, "supply creates its own demand". Consumption plus investment equals aggregate demand, or so the theory holds. Here is a great explanation as to why that is not always true,

The fallacy of Say’s Law is revealed by Keynes’s division of aggregate demand into investment and consumption for purposes of income analysis (Y = C + I). Keynes points out that the factors which determine consumption are quite different from the factors determining investment but together they constitute the aggregate demand and determine the level of income. Consumption is a function of current income, but it does not increase as much as the increase in income.

Investment, on the other hand, depends upon technological developments and the marginal efficiency of capital. It is, therefore, clear that the determinants of consumption and the determinants of investments are not interconnected in such a way as to ensure adequate aggregate demand.

11 Criticisms Against the Say’s Law of Market

Read this article to discover the eleven major criticisms against the Say’s Law of market. 1. Possibilities of Deficiency of Effective Demand: It is assumed in Say's Law that whatever is earned is spent either on consumption goods or on investment goods, thus, income is automatically spent at a...

www.economicsdiscussion.net

The problem here is "savings". Savings are not investments, a clear example is the stock market. When you purchase a stock on the exchange you are not investing, you are saving. You are purchasing a certificate that you plan to sell, in the future, at a profit. No company is getting any capital to invest. Now, if you buy a lawnmower, trailer, and pick-up to start a lawn mowing business, you are investing. Investing can create demand, but savings can stifle demand. So, aggregate demand is equal to Consumption plus investment MINUS savings. That savings is the fallacy in "trickle down" economics. And that savings has led to the obscene expansion in the wealth held by the ultra-wealthy. It is locked up in paper wealth, stocks, treasuries, hell, even art and baseball cards.

the ultra-wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the moderately wealthy, and in some cases, even the middle class.

Baloney.

 

[Winston]

Seriously? Reagan was a net tax cutter, Winston! Where are you getting your information from?

Actually, I know it because I was there. I was Andrew Benavie's teacher's assistant. He was head of the OMB in Reagan's administration. They were using the Chicago model of Macroeconomics. As an econometrics specialist, it was my job to crunch the numbers. There was a bar in Chapel Hill, called "He's not Here", pretty funny. But every Thursday the Economics department got together there to drink. The arguments between Benavie and myself were legendary. I told him that the numbers for Reagan's tax cuts didn't add up. There was a huge underestimation of the savings function when it came to aggregate demand. The tax cuts would not deliver more revenue, and in fact, would be a drag on the economy. Reagan, and Benavie, soon learned I was correct, and Reagan instigated the biggest tax increase in American history in terms of percentage of GDP. That, and Volcker, was what stopped rampant inflation. And to put icing on the cake, Benavie became a celloist with the New York symphony and withdrew from academia.

 

[initforme]

We have an excess of willing hard workers so that is not the problem.