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

[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!

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?

 

[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!

It's a lie you liar.

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

Because he's too stupid to grasp the concept?

 

[320 Years of History]

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

 

[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?

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?

Wow, do you even understand what the stock market does? You're scaring me more and more...

 

[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?

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?

 

[idb]

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?

Wow, do you even understand what the stock market does? You're scaring me more and more...

Does that mean you disagree?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

I agree so why don't we stop electing money hungry people who are anti business? And always want other people's money, so they can invest.

 

[MrFritz]

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.

tRumproids would have to admit the truth. They don't do that because tRumproids are natural born liars. Trump is the biggest lying sack of pus ever and his tRumproids don't care.

tRumproids need to be excised from America sent to their hero Putin.

 

[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.

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!

 

[flacaltenn]

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 less common in the economy today that the MARKET creates jobs. That was true when CHOICES in goods were prevalent and there were abundant numbers of critical start-ups and entrepreneurial ventures. And stuff was made HERE in the USA.. In the current economy -- a quick trip to Lowes or Depot will tell you WHO determines what's on the shelf and where those jobs are.

NOW -- it's those fresh blood start-ups that is the ONLY thing that can create jobs. And they are non-existent. And no amount of govt giveaways at the consumer end is gonna change that. Only the "wealthy" who RISK capital on new ideas can improve that situation. Access to Venture Capital and market finance is critical for that to happen. Which is why it is so important to get corporate cash BACK from overseas and not PENALIZE capital gains and the "rich".

No RISK --- no market expansion. Leftists spend their lives trying to remove RISK from life and the vocabulary.

Risk comes from trickle-down. Entrepreneurs can come from everywhere. Watch Shark Tank. That's how "trickle down" works ------- morons.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

tRumproids would have to admit the truth. They don't do that because tRumproids are natural born liars. Trump is the biggest lying sack of pus ever and his tRumproids don't care.

tRumproids need to be excised from America sent to their hero Putin.

You think Hillary is honest? Politifact is a joke and you're naive to buy into their crap!

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

Wow, do you even understand what the stock market does? You're scaring me more and more...

Does that mean you disagree?

Do I disagree with what?

 

[flacaltenn]

In fact -- story has been "mergers and acquisitions" for the past 2 decades. The body economic consuming it's own fat. That's where profits are made lately. Not in honest EXPANSION of markets. But gross amounts of consolidation WITHIN markets. It's phony. And it's dangerous.

Because for global trade to work -- the deal always was that AMERICA was gonna be the entrepreneurial engine and the rest of the world could make our undies and basketballs. You start "eating the rich", and that's the end of the ball game.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Hillary is wrong. It's amazing how many people still think that there are tax cuts that would benefit the poor..

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

Not really creating jobs and wealth HERE if the chairs are coming by boat into Long Beach harbor. Or from IKEA. Not true anymore. We need to be tech and innovation leaders and have adequate risk capital available from "the rich"..

 

[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?

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.

 

[Boss]

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?

I didn't say supply side economics doesn't work. It works well when we practice it... we've not done that since Ronald Reagan did it in the 1980s and it sparked economic prosperity that lasted through the Clinton administration.

Redistributing wealth doesn't create demand or jobs. You're taking the money that the people who can create jobs would use and giving it to people who never create jobs. We can use your immediate family as an example... Mommy and Daddy work and earn a paycheck... You and baby sister sit at home all day with the babysitter... Would it be a good or bad idea to "redistribute the wealth" and let you and baby sister have all Mommy and Daddy's money? What happens at the end of the month when the bills are due and you kids have squandered the money on candy and Frozen movies? You see-- it's a MUCH better idea to let Mommy and Daddy handle the wealth.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"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.

 

[Boss]

"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.

No one has said to give the rich more money. Where did you get that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

"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.

No one has said to give the rich more money. Where did you get that?

Perhaps I should have said keep more of our money.